During the investigation of Crime Case No. 113 of 1996 registered at Police Station City Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, Muhammad Asghar accused of that case is said to have imparted the information to the S.H.O. Police Station City Kehror Pacca that he as well as his brother Zafar Iqbal (petitioner-accused) purchased the heroin from one Zahoor son of Pathana, resident of Chak No.237/WB Police Station Saddar Duniapur. Thereafter, Mr. Muzaffar Rasheed, Inspector/S. H. O. Police Station City Kehror Pacca claimed that he was present on 4-7-1996 in Chak No.237/WB when on a Pacca road going towards Chowk Soobay Khan he surprised Zafar Iqbal near a Girls Primary School who attempted to slip away, but was overpowered. His person was searched and from the pocket of his Shalwar 50 grams of heroin was recovered which was taken into possession vide memo. Attested by Muhammad Younas, S.-I. And Khalid Mahmood, A.S.-I. One gram of heroin was sealed in one parcel and the remaining heroin was sealed in another parcel. Zafar Iqbal petitioner was arrested. The complaint was sent by the S.H.O. Police Station City KehrorPacca to the S.H.O. Police Station Saddar Duniapur, District Lodhran where F.I.R. No.106, dated 7-4-1996 was registered under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The bail application of Zafar Iqbal petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran who has 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 the learned State Counsel and gone through the record before me. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the S.H.O. Police Station City Kehror Pacca had no jurisdiction enter the territorial limits of Police Station Saddar, Duniapur and on this ground the alleged recovery is doubtful particularly when the recovery memo. Is attested by two Police Officers. He added that without getting his presence recorded in the daily diary of Police Station Saddar, Duniapur the recovery could not be effected in the manner adopted by the S.H.O. Police Station City Kehror Pacca. On the contrary the contention of the learned State Counsel is that the Police Officers are as good witnesses as the persons from the public and that after being imparted with the information by Muhammad Asghar accused of the other case, Muzaffar Rashid Inspector was bound to raid Zafar lqbal who rather succeeded in the matter.
3. My view is that the reasoning adopted by the learned counsel for the petitioner has to prevail.
The fact of the matter is that no information was imparted by Muhammad Asghar accused of Crime Case No.113/96 registered at Police Station City Kehror Pacca under Article 40 of the Qanoon- e-Shahadat, 1984. He had intimated that his brother Zafar Iqbal (petitioner-accused) also purchased the heroin from one Zahoor resident of Chak No.237/WB situated within the territorial limits of Police Station Saddar, Duniapur. There was sufficient time available to the complainant to go to Police Station Saddar, Duniapur to report his arrival in Daily Diary and to proceed further in accordance with law either with the cooperation/help of the Police, Police Station Saddar, Duniapur or with the permission of the S.H.O., Police Station Saddar, Duniapur. He had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter directly. If this type of working is approved there would be administrative chaos leading towards judicial anarchy. This is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect of the matter is that there was sufficient time to join any person from the publictowards the alleged recovery of the heroin. There is nothing in the police diary was made thereof. No doubt the Police Officers of every rank are respectable persons and can be the witnesses but through the use of weapon of cross-examination their veracity shall have to be determined during the trial. In every case the aforesaid type of working cannot be approved as the Police Officers have to keep in mind and strengthen their own working. However, there are certain checks and balances. To exemplify the confession of an accused person is not admissible in evidence if made before any Police Officer of any rank as incorporated in Article 38 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat, 1984. It has been intimated by the learned State Counsel that one case of heroin is already pending against Zafar Iqbal petitioner-accused. However, he is not aware of the result of that case and keeping in view the fact that an accused is innocent unless convicted, this matter can be ignored even at this stage. The only irresistible conclusion which can be drawn at this stage for the disposal of this bail application is that the involvement of Zafar Iqbal petitioner is a question of further inquiry who, as such, is entitled to be admitted to bail.
4. I, therefore, accept this application and admit Zafar Iqbal petitioner-- accused to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran with the direction to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing failing which his bail may be cancelled by the learned trial Court.