' MRS. KHALIDA RACHID, J.--- On a tip of secret information, the Staff of A.N.F. Held surveillance of the area near Jinnah Park, Peshawar on 22-6-1998 when at 17-30 hours the suspected person carrying a black shopping bag entered the gate of Jinnah Park. He was intercepted and overpowered by the A.N.F. Staff. Upon a search of .The bag, some two Kg. Heroin powder hidden in two white plastic bags, weighing one Kg. Each was recovered. The accused was arrested and accordingly booked under sections 6, 7 and 9 of C.N.S.A. Act, vide F.I.R. No,20, dated 22-6-1998 registered in Police Station Anti-Narcotics Force, Peshawar. During the course of investigation accused Liaqat Khan also implicated petitioner in his statement before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. And claimed Adil Jan petitioner to be the financier and owner of the contraband drug that resulted into the arrest of the petitioner on 3-8-1998. His unsuccessful attempt before the lower forums obliged the petitioner to approach this Court with the present application.
2. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.
3. Mr. Ishtiaq Ibrahim, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the implication of his client in the statement of principal accused Liaqat Khan, which remained uncorroborated by any independent circumstance/witness, is not enough to connect him with the commission of the offence.
4. The stance of Mr. Muhammad Tariq Kakar, learned counsel for the State is that C.N.S.A. Being a special statute does not require the recording of the statement of the witnesses under section 25 of the Act. Referring to sections 8 and 14 of the C.N.S.A. Act, learned counsel for the State further maintained that any person associating in helping the commission of offence is equally liable to punishment under the present law. He insisted that this law specifically places the financier/trafficker and owner of the Narcotic drug at par with the carrier.
5. We have no cavil with the proposition advanced by the learned State Counsel. No doubt, we fully accede that a major culprit in drug trafficking case is a financier or owner who is always the ultimate beneficiary of this unlawful business but seldom caught, mostly due to inefficient and ineffective investigation by the Investigating Agency. In the absence of any tangible and substantive evidence against such people, the Courts are always reluctant to accept the implication by the main accused in his statement before the police. In this case too the main accused has charged the petitioner in his statement recorded simply under section 161, Cr.P.C.
Which is usually not gravely taken under consideration by the Courts. The Investigating Agency did not care to make any efforts to record the statement of main accused under section 164 or 364, Cr.P.C. Mere statement of principal accused under section 161, Cr.P.C. Is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence, carrying penalty of death. Thus, a prima facie case for the purpose of bail has been made out by the petitioner.
6. We thus, allow this petition with the direction to the Investigating Agency especially dealing with smuggling of narcotics cases to investigate the case properly. Inefficiency shown by the staff concerned must be dealt with in accordance with law.
The petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in a sum of Rs, three lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court, who shall see that the sureties are locale and men of means.