' Mr. Ishtiaq Ibrahim, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that he has been requested by the brother of the petitioner's counsel to get the present case adjourned to some other date as the learned counsel for the petitioner is sick.
2. 1 am surprised, at the procedure adopted by the petitioner's counsel to get adjournment. In fact this is not at all proper muchless proper, to get adjournments from the High Court. The request is, therefore, declined.
3. In this case 4 k.g. Of contraband heroin was recovered from the house of the petitioner. A case was registered against her vide F.I.R. No,604, dated 22.10-1997, Police Station, Chamkani, District Peshawar under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. She was arrested and her bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge (V), Peshawar (Mr. ,Muhammad Ayub Khan) by his order dated 9-12-1998.
4. Resultantly, the petitioner has come to this Court for the redress of her grievance alleging therein that she is innocent, falsely charged and, therefore, entitled to be released on bail till the disposal of the case.
5. A perusal of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar would show that the raid on the house of the petitioner was conducted by the C.I.A., after it had obtaining a proper search warrant from Magistrate 1st Class, Peshawar. Besides, when the sample of the heroin powder was sent to the F.S.L, it confirmed that the item so recovered was in fact contraband heroin powder.
6. In view of the quantity of the heroin Powder (4 k.g.) recovered from the house of the petitioner, the Chemical Examiner's Report and the fact that the Judge, Special Court has recorded a speaking order, I see no justification to interfere with the discretion exercised by the said Judge Judiciously.
7. Besides, on a tentative assessm ent of a the available record, it is not ,at all possible for me to come to the conclusion that reasonable grounds do exit for believing that the petitioner has not committed the offence charged with. Accordingly I hold that the reasons given by the Judge, Special Court for not granting bail to the petitioner are quite sufficient/convincing and I do not want to upset the impugned judgment. Reliance can be placed on case ljaz All Khan v. The State, reported as 1966 Supreme Court (Monthly Review) 1168, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- "The petitioner who is charged with the offence of murder has been refused bail by the Courts below from which he now seeks leave to appeal.
' On examining the facts appearing in the order of the learned Judge in the High Court we are inclined to the view that the conditions laid down in section 497, Cr.P.C., for refusing bail to the petitioner were amply fulfilled in this case. The petition is dismissed,"
8. In the facts and circumstances of this ease, I am of the view that petitioner's bail application does not merit consideration. The same is dismissed in limine.
4