1. The applicant is implicated in Crime No.95 of 1993 of Police Station Kalakot, Karachi (South), which was recorded on 22-6-1993 at 0800 hours at the instance of A.S.I. Javed Balouch of the said Police Station under Article 3/4 of Prohibition Order, 1979. As per averments made by the complainant in the F.I.R., A.S.I. Javed Balouch was partolling in his area in a mobile van when he received a spy information that narcotics were being sold in Afshani Street whereupon he raided the place and arrested applicant, Sakhi Rehmatullah, and his personal search yielded a plastic Theli, which he was holding in his hand, which contained 200 puryas and Rs.100 cash. The contents were heroin which were sealed and the case registered. The applicant has since been challaned and is facing trial in the Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South). He had earlier moved bail application in this Court (Bail Application No. 528 of 1994), which came up before this Court on 7-7- 1994 and it was rejected but at the same time the learned Trial Court was directed to complete the hearing within three months as the case was a short one in which only three prosecution witnesses had been cited. A perusal of the challan shows that the first witness is Shakoor son of Ibrahim, a private person, and other witnesses are H.C. Muhammad Aslam and A.S.I. Javed Balouch. Out of these three witnesses H.C. Muhammad Aslam had been examined by the trial court prior to 7-7- 1994 and since then there is no progress in the matter.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in custody since 22-6- 1993 when the F.I.-R, was lodged and the Prosecution has not been able to complete the case within three months as directed by this Court on 7-7-1994 and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail due to the delaying tactics of the prosecution.
3. The learned A.A.-G. Opposes the bail application on the ground that the offence pertains to the recovery of heroin which is a heinous offence and the delay caused is not due to the fault of the prosecution.
4. The learned trial Judge dismissed the bail application on 23-10-1994 on the ground that the I.O.
5. Had not been examined till then and no further ground for grant of bail was made out.
6. It is rather a matter of surprise that the prosecution has not been able to examine even the Investigating Officer of the case, who is, besides private Mashir Shakoor, the only remaining witness.
7. The learned Trial Judge did not explain why it did not comply with the order dated 7-7-1994 passed by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 528 of 1994 whereby it was directed that the case should be finalised within three months, which period expired on 6-10-1994. The order dated 23-10- 1994 whereby the bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned Trial Court is quite silent on this aspect. It appears to me that the prosecution is not at all serious in pursuing the matter.
8. Otherwise there can be no explanation for not examining the Investigating Officer in spite of the lapse of one and a half years since filing of the challan on 22-6-1993. Narcotic sale is spreading like a wild fire in the society and it is incumbent upon the prosecution to ensure that evidence is produced before the Court as soon as possible and conviction of accused is secured dilly in such cases reflects adversely on the bona fides of the case since neither the learned State counsel nor the learned Trial Court has been able to give any explanation for non-completion of the case within time as per direction of the Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 528 of 1994.
9. As such, I consider it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. He is accordingly granted bail on furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.