' MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, C.J.--Relevant facts briefly mentioned are that on 25th September, 1996, based upon credible information regarding involvement of certain persons in "Arm Trafficking", C.I.A. Staff, police officers with employees of Range Reserve and a lady constable under the supervision of E.A.C. IV and Magistrate First Class (Mr. Zulfiqar Durrani) raided the house of applicant Yar Muhammad situated in village "Choi" Chashma Achozai, Tehsil Quetta. It is the case of prosecution that during search of applicant's house a white coloured bag containing following arm and ammunition was recovered from residential room placed at No,1 of said premises:---
(i) 12 pistols of 30 bore.
(ii) 23 (twenty-three) magazines of TT Pistols.
(iii) 3 (three) S.M.G. And its 120 rounds.
' Thus raiding party apprehended the accused/applicant, seized above articles and prepared Mashirnama on the spot. Murasila was forwarded to Police Station Air-Port Quetta; where F.I.R.
No,121/95 was registered against accused/applicant under section 13-A, Arms Ordinance. After completion of investigation concerned police submitted challan before Special Judge Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Balochistan, Quetta, during November, 1995. It is alleged that so far trial Court has framed the charge and case is now fixed on 18th September, 1996 for prosecution evidence.
2. Applicant moved the trial Court, praying for his release on bail, but same was eventually declined vide order dated Ist August, 1996. Feeling aggrieved the accused has approached this Court praying for granting him bail.
3. Mr. Abdul Aziz Khan Khilji learned counsel for accused/applicant emphatically argued the case and raised following contentions:---
(a) The basic requirements for conducting search as contemplated under section 103, .Cr.P.C. Have been disregarded while conducting the raid. Alleged recoBvery being extremely defective stands vitiated in its entirety. To supplement his submission reliance was placed on the following reported judgments:---
(i) 1996 PCr.LJ 101 (Gulshan v. The State).
(ii) 1996 PCr.LJ 179 (Miss Shahida Parveen v. State). {{PAGE CUT}}
(iii) 1996 MLD 418 (Bohn' Ahmed and others v. State).
(iv) 1996 PCr.L1 1359 (Dr. Shah v. The State).
(v) 1996 MLD 13.11 (Muhammad Akbar v. State).
(vi) 1996 Per.L1 1816 (Alditar liussAin v. State),
(vii) 1996 Per,L1 1437 (Sajjad Hussain V, MO), (Viii)1996 SCM14 167 (Altaf Hussain v. State). (ix) PLD 1996 SC 574 (MightAq Ahmed v. State), (A) 1995 PCr.1.1 448 (Mtlimiliffiati thillitail V, Witte), (Al) /995 PCr.L.1 1178 (Siddique v. The State). (xii) 1995 PCr.L.I 1654 (Zulfigar All Shah v. The State).
(b) Press briefing appeared in newspaper on the day following applicant's OHM and exonerated him from involvement in the offetiee, Thus At least a doubt suggesting further inquiry was created, entitling the petitioner to grant of bail. Pollowing judgments were relied;..
(1) 1996 PCr,L1 1816 (Akhtar Hussain v. State). (ii) PLD 1996 NC 574 (Mushtaq Ahmad v. State),
(c) Without prejudice According to petitioner house allegedly raided has not been proved under exclusive,control or possession of accused, Besides, applicant having been attraeted on the cries and commotion' of female inhabitants of raided house was unjustifiably apprehended.
Responsibility for commission of offence therefore cannot be placed upon accused.
(d) The Accused is deemed innocent till found guilty. The prosecution witnesses are apparently interested in supporting accusations Against Applicant, Besides there is no compensation regarding detention of accused if eventually found innocent;
(i) 199 PCr,L1 488 (Muhammad 141111811111 V, StMa), (11) 1996 Per.1.1 978 (Shahzad v, The State).
4. Learned Additional Advocate.General vehemently opposing the bail application made following submissions:
(A) Each case required OX$1111111M1011 according to its own peculiar circumstances. Mere 11011- 0XAMilltitiOri of witness from locality does not vitiate the raid/search, Legal requirements merely provide caution for preventing grossly unfair and arbitrary action by Investigation Agency: Police officials are equally competent witnesses if no mitt fides exists: Reference has been made to following decided NMI-
(i) PLD 1975 SC 607 (Muhammad Khan v. Dost Muhammad): (Li) 1976 SCM R 72 (Rehm v: State): PLD 1975 SC 114 (Munittauddin v, State),
(iv) PLD 1951 SC 635 (Murat:.: Ahmad v, State),
(v) PLD 1954 SC (Sheriat Appellate Bench) 278 & 283 (Muhammad Shah v, State),
(vi) PLD 1985 (PSC) 410 (Abdul Hamid v. State),
(vii) 1986 SCMR (Shariat Appellate Court) (Malik Khan v, State), (viii)PLD 1987 SC 46 (Sadar Abbas and 2 others v, The State),
(ix) PLD 1990 SC 1088 (Tuft Khan v, State),
(x) 1991 SCM R 458 (Zardar v, State),
(xi) 1991 SCM R 461 (Khudal Rahim v, State),
(xii) PLD 1992 SC 1475 (Mirza Shah v, State), (xiii)1995 SCM R 1793 (MaIMI* Hussain v, State), (xiv) PLD 1996 SC 574 (Muhammad Axem v, State), (b), The raid was conducted under the supervision of Magistrate First Class, Name of applicant transpires in the Murula, which was Immediately recorded; at the spot and forwarded to Airport Police Station for registering the case, Undisputedly Magistrate is also mentioned in the calendar of witnesses, therefore, objection regarding validity of raid or absence of independent witnesses during search is totally misconceived.
(c) The Court while granting bail has to satisfy itself whether reasonable ground exists against accused for believing that .He is connected with offence alleged against him. Without such finding case cannot be termed as fit for further inquiry.
(i) 1989 SCM R 99 (Najibul v. Saadat Khan).
(d) The material available with the prosecution discloses exclusive control of accuseCapplicant, over the house located in village "Choi" Chashma lB Achozai which was raided on 29-9-1995. It would be premature to {{PAGE CUT}} consider vague defence plea without formal proof. Accordingly requests for bail lacks merit.
' We ' have gone through abovequoted reports and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties.
' Firstly main thrust of arguments was directed towards illegalities and improprieties of raid/search without associating person from locality. Respectfully considering ratio decidendi of reports relied by learned counsel for applicant which elucidate requirements of section 103, Cr.P.C. And impending obligation regarding procurement of independent respectable inhabitants from locality at the time of planned search to eliminate possibility of false involvement or arbitrary administrative action, against affected person. The observations primarily suggest compliance with essentials contemplated by section 103, Cr.P.C. And manner of conducting search of house; but nowhere it is indicated that failure to comply with such requirements ipso facto renders the search/raid as devoid of lawful authority. The principle enunciated by the superior Courts relied upon by the State Counsel manifests that testimony of witnesses cannot be outrightly descredited or excluded from consideration merely because they are police officials. Therefore, various factors such as--
(i) causes regarding non-association of local inhabitants;
(ii) genuineness of action for public interest or general benefits;
(iii) non-attributiort of mala fides against police officials or other witnesses of search;
(iv) leakage of information or probability of destroying evidence if search is delayed;
(v) urgency of matter or State interest must be kept in view while examining special circumstances of each cam We may mention that a manner of search and adherence to section 103, Cr.P.C. Has been discussed by Honourable Supreme Court in case PLD 1996 Supreme Court 574. However, principle concerning admissibility of testimony given by police officials with obvious restrictions still hold the field and has not been excluded from consideration. Therefore, examining factual aspects available on record and raid having been conducted within the presence of Magistrate who prima facie cannot be deemed interested. In our opinion apparently prosecution accusations cannot be straightaway rejected. Each case has its distinctive features, and requires independent. Evaluation.
It would be for trial Court to assess real evidentiary value of prosecution witnesses at appropriate stage.
The press clipping though not admissible without formal proof yet can be referred while tentatively examining various factors connected with commission of offence. Undisputedly in this case express mention of applicant's name was made in the Murasila immediately recorded at the spot therefore, said press report will not by itself have any legal impact of disproving material on record.
' Accordingly without limiting positive comments and purely on tentative appraisal of available material, we feel that reasonable grounds connecting the petitioner with commission of offence ,exist. Therefore% contentions suggesting further inquiry are not helpful to the petitioner. In this behalf reliance can be placed on the observations in case 1989 SCM R 899.
' For the above' reasons we do not find it a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. Trial Court is however, directed to expedite disposal of the case by fixing short dates. Piosecution should ensure production of witnesses before trial Court on next hearing. .
' Subject to above observations petition is dismissed.