Muhammad Anwar, A.S.I./complainant in the company of Mureed Hussain, H.C., Abdur Rehman Constable, Muhammad Asrar Constable and Abdur Rasheed, Constable all posted in C.I.A. Staff, Multan were present in Chowk Bazar near Chowk Pananwala, Multan when one person came close to them and turned back in a suspicious manner. He was surprised and was over--powered. He was none else than Muhammad Nadim alias Noori petitioner accused. His person was searched.
Fifteen small packets each containing one gram of heroin were recovered from his person vide memo attested by Abdur Rehman, Constable and Muhammad Asrar, Constable. The said A.S.I. Sent the complaint and F.I.R. No.24, dated 29-1-1995 was registered at Police Station Kup, Multan under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and under section 14 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930. He prepared the site-plan as well. The statements of the P.Ws. Were recorded. One gram of heroin was sealed in one parcel which was sent to the Chemical Examiner from where the report is said to have been received in positive. The remaining heroin was sealed in another parcel. After submission of the challan the accused has been summoned by the trial Court, but as deposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar no P.W. Has yet been examined. The bail plea of this petitioner has been rejected by the lower Court filed, this, petition before this Court to try his luck to be admitted to bail.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State Counsel and gone through the record before me. There is no need to mention the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties which shall stand projected in the reasons being mentioned infra on the basis of which I am inclined to admit Muhammad Nadim alias Noori petitioner-- accused to bail: ---
(i) Chowk Bazar near Chowk Pananwala is a congested area of Multan no person from the public was joined at the time of the' doubt the recovery was not being effected from a house for the purpose of attraction of section 103, Cr.P.C., yet to enhance the weight, value and sanctity of the alleged recovery some person from the public must have been associated. There is nothing on the file that any request was made to the public in the matter which was refused. The recovery memo is attested by two Constables. I am tempted to give my view that all Police Officers of all ranks are respectable persons. However, the law has to take its course. To exemplify the confession of an accused person before the Police Officer of any rank is inadmissible in evidence. The weight to, the statements of the three Police Officers who are witnesses of the alleged recovery can be evaluated and granted after the use of test of cross-examination when they stand in the witness-box. Before that the bail cannot be refused to this petitioner on the score as the same would be simply a punishment without conviction.
(ii) There is nothing before this Court to make out that any case of the instant nature stands registered, disposed of or is pending against the accused. The factual aspect of the matter is that three Police Officers one of the rank of the A.S.I. And two of the rank of Constables are the witnesses of the case and surprisingly none of them has stood in the witness-box as yet as intimated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This petitioner was arrested on 29-1-1995 and today is 18-9-1995. It seems that the trial is being conducted by the trial Court in a perfunctory manner and the Presiding Officer seems to have loose control as the attendance of three prosecution witnesses who are none else than the members of the police force has not been procured either in ordinary manner or through adopting the coercive methods. They legal benefit is allowed to the petitioner on this ground as well as he has scored a good point thereof.
(iii) My view is that in this matter Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 is not attracted.
3. For what has been said above, I accept this application and admit Muhammad Nadeem alias Noori petitioner-accused to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the direction to appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing failing which the trial Court may cancel his bail. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of four months from the next date of hearing already fixed before him under intimation to the Additional Registrar of this Court failing which the law shall take its course.
4. Copy Dasti subject to the payment of usual charges, if desired.