' The prosecution case against Mehboob Ali alias Booha petitioner is that while under arrest in another case, he led to the recovery of 3 kilograms of heroin from his house.
2. Bail for him is urged on the grounds that except for the police, no public witness was associated to witness the alleged recovery and further that the first report of the Chemical Examiner about the contents of the sample, sent to him, was in the negative and the second report, which was positive, was maneuvered. It is next stated that the offence was non-cognizable because the alleged recovery had not been made from a public place. Muhammad Bashir alias Doba v. The State PLD 1988 Lah. 574 has been cited in this behalf. The authority of the C.I.A. Staff to carry out investigation of their own is also challenged. In this respect, Iftikhar Ahmad alias Dani v. The State PLD 1995 Lah.
606 has been cited, where it was observed that member of the C.I.A. Staff irrespective of their rank and status can investigate cases only when they are entrusted with the same by the Superintendent of Police of the District. It is further stated that mindful of this legal defect, District Attorney had recommended for the cancellation of the case but ignoring his opinion, the Investigating Officer challenged the petitioner.
3. Admittedly, the alleged recovery had been made from the petitioner's house by the C.I.A. Staff without obtaining any permission from a Magistrate and in view of the judgment delivered in Iftikhar Ahmad alias Dani's case, they had no authority to embark upon the investigation.
Accordingly, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs, one lac with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.