1. ' The applicant, Gul Muhammad son of Lal Muhammad seeks bail in a case under section 6/9 of Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, (F.I.R. No,19 of 1999, Police Station A.N.F.I), pending trial before the Court of learned Sessions/Special Judge (A.N.F.), Karachi (East).
2. ' Prosecution case briefly stated is that the complainant A.S.-I. Jehangir Khan while on patrol duty received spy information that Charas was being sold near Hashmi Masjid, P.I.B. Colony. When he reached the given spot he came across the applicant and three 'other accused persons. It is alleged that the police party happened to secure different quantities of Charas from the applicant and the other co-accused, Gul Muhammad son of Niaz Muhammad. It is stated in F.I.R. That from the possession of applicant 530 grams of Charas was secured while 400 grams Charas was secured from the possession of the co-accused Gut Muhammad son of Niaz Muhammad. It is further alleged that the absconding accused Nazar Muhammad was also in possession of some quantity of Charas which he had thrown on the ground while running away which later on weighed 600 grams.
3. ' Challan has been submitted against the applicant and the other co-accused, namely, Gul Muhammad son of Niaz Muhammad, Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Sharif.
4. ' It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the case against the applicant would fall under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Mashirs of recovery are the subordinate police officials of the same police station. There is only a general statement that the complainant attempted to secure Mashirs from the public but none was prepared to act as such.
5. The learned counsel lastly argued that the maximum punishment prescribed under the law in the present case would not exceed seven years' R.I. He placed reliance upon the eases of Nazan Shah v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1540 and Liaquat Ali v. The State reported in 1998 PCr.LJ 1444.
6. ' On the other hand, learned Special Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that the application of section 103, Cr.P.0 stands excluded in the cases falling under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. He placed reliance on the case of Buner Gul v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 728. It is further contended by him that the applicant would be reasonable for the entire quantity of 1530 grams of Charas allegedly secured from the possession of all the accused in the case as they were hauled up by the police party at the same place. He also referred to the case of Mst. Nasira Bibi v.
7. The State reported in PLD 1998 Lah.
8. 146.
9. ' Under the circumstances of the case we are not impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel for the State in so far as they make the applicant responsible for the entire quantity of the narcotics. It is not the case of prosecution that the accused were found selling Charas within the bounds of an enclosure, room or shop but it is alleged that on personal search the Charas was secured from the pocket of the inner shirt worn by the accused/applicant. There is no ambiguity in the process of securing the quantity of narcotics. It has been mentioned that the quantity that was secured from the possession of the applicant weighed only 530 grams. The case-law cited by the learned counsel also support the case of the applicant. In view of the case reported as Tariq Bashir v. The State in PLD 1995 SC 34, we are inclined to allow bail to the applicant. The application is, thus, allowed and the applicant is granted bail subject to his furnishing a security in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.