1. ' SHAH NAWAZ A. AWAN, J.--- This order will dispose of bail application filed on behalf of accused above named who has been booked to face his trial under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 vide F.I.R. No,51/1995 registered at Police Station Kotri.
2. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant Farooq Qadir Lakher, A.S.I. While on patrol duty along with his subordinate staff reached Gulshan-e-Shahbaz at about 14-00 hours and started checking the vehicles which were passing on the National Highway. At about 15-00 hours a rickshaw came from Jamshoro side, the police stopped the rickshaw and checked the person sitting in it. On personal search of said person. A.S.I. Recovered a big piece of Charas covered in the plastic from the fold of his Shalwar. A.S.I. Took the Charas in custody and arrested the accused. The said A.S.I. Secured the Charas and prepared Mashirnama in presence of Mashirs and enquired the name of the person who disclosed his name as Roze Muhammad Khan son of Dad Muhammad. The A.S.I. Then brought the Charas and the accused at the police station and registered the case.
3. ' Mr. Shaukat Ali, learned Advocate for the applicant contended: firstly that the A.S.I. Who had arrested accused and recovered the alleged Charas is not authorized under section 19 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance to take search of the suspected person as according to said section the Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police can take search of the suspected person, therefore, the entire exercise of the A.S.I. Is futile and secondly that the driver of the rickshaw from where the alleged Charas was recovered has not been made as a Mashir of recovery and the Mashirs who have acted are all police personnel as such the accused is entitled for concession of bail.
4. ' Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, learned Assistant Advocate-General has frankly conceded for grant of bail to accused on the ground that there is violation of section 19 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance as the alleged search has been taken by a person who was not authorized as it is provided under the law that Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police can take search of the said person. In the circumstances, learned Assistant Advocate-General has stated no objection for grant of bail to accused.
5. We have heard both the counsel at great length and have perused the entire record of the case. It is an admitted fact that the search of the accused was taken by a person who was not authorized under the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance to take such search and further the recovery is not made before the Mashers who were available on the spot such as rickshaw driver or any other person present on the spot therefore,. We are of the view that the case of the present applicant falls under the definition of further inquiry, and inclined to grant bail to applicant subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to satisfaction of the trial Court.