1. ' MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.--- The facts leading to the present application for bail are that applicant/accused Hazrat Khan is facing trial before Special Judge, Malir, Karachi in Special Case No,25 of 1999, under sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1999. The said case has arisen out of F.I.R. No, 14 of 1998 of Police Station Anti-Narcotics Force, Karachi.
2. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case, as disclosed in the said F.I.R. Which was lodged by complainant Sub-Inspector, Sajjad Ali, are that on 14-10-1998 he, alongwith his staff, was on patrolling duty. At about 7-15 p.m., when they reached Sohrab Goth Bus Stop, opposite Al-Asif Square, they noticed a suspected person holding cloth bag in his hand who alighted from a bus. He was intercepted and, upon enquiry, he disclosed his name as Hazrat Khan. He could not give satisfactory reply about the contents of the cloth bag which he was carrying. On search of the said bag, 10 slabs of Charas, each weighing 1 Kg., total weight 10 Kg. Was recovered. 20 grams sample was taken from each slab for chemical analysis and the recovered property was sealed. After completing all the codal formalities, the accused was brought at the police station alongwith recovered narcotic and as such F.I.R. Was lodged.
3. ' After usual investigation, applicant/accused was sent up to stand trial.
4. ' The applicant/accused applied for bail before the trial Court but it was declined by impugned order, dated 15-3-1999.
5. ' We have heard Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned counsel for the applicant/accused, and Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, learned counsel for the State. The latter opposed the bail plea of the applicant/accused.
6. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that the complainant was not competent to arrest the applicant/accused; that the entire quantity of narcotics recovered from the possession of the applicant/accused was not sent to Chemical Analyser for examination and report; that there is no mention of- scale or weighing machine in the F.I.R.; that the recovery of narcotics was made from a thickly populated area but no details of the bus i,e, its number etc. From which applicant/accused alighted are mentioned in the F.I.R.; that the driver and conductor of the bus were not examined' by the police; that the applicant/accused is contractor and about 14 days prior to his involvement in the present case, he was wrongfully detained by the police. It is, therefore, urged that the applicant/accused is entitled to bail.
7. ' We have perused the impugned order and material placed on record.
8. ' Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 contemplates that the Sub-Inspector of police or an authorised person of equivalent rank empowered by the Government is competent to seize the narcotic and detain, search or arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under this Act. Admittedly, in this case, the seizure and arrest was made by a Sub-Inspector of Police. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel that Sub-Inspector was not competent to arrest the applicant/accused is misconceived.
9. ' The contention that the entire narcotic recovered from the possession of applicant/accused was not sent to Chemical Analyser or there is no mention of scale or weighing machine in the F.I.R. Is also devoid of force, ' The primary object of F.I.R. Under section 154, Cr.P.C. Is to convey information about the commission of a cognizable offence, which a Police Officer is competent to investigate as contemplated under section 156, Cr.P.C. In other words, the F.I.R. Is meant to set in motion the Investigation Agency. The minute details about the incident are not necessarily to be given in the F.I.R. And F.I.R. Cannot be ruled out of consideration merely on account of the omission of a minor fact. Not sending the entire quantity of narcotics to Chemical Analyser cannot diminish the gravity of the offence until and unless it is proved to the contrary after the assessment and evaluation of the evidence brought on the record at the time of trial. It is not denied that the samples sent to the Chemical Analyser were not contraband narcotics.
10. ' As per prosecution case, the applicant/accused was arrested when he alighted from inside the bus. In the circumstances, not mentioning the number of bus oi non-examination of the driver and conductor of the said bus is of no significance and this argument is of no avail to the defence.
11. Moreover, it tantamounts to deeper appreciation and evaluation of evidence which is not permissible in law for the purpose of bail.
12. ' The plea that independent private persons were not made Mashirs of recovery as it was affected from a public place and, thus, the entire case of prosecution had collapsed is also without substance. The evidence of a police personnel cannot be ignored at this stage as a police man is as good witness as any other person until and unless evidence is brought on record to discredit his evidence.
13. ' In support of the contention that the applicant/accused was in custody of police 14 days prior to incident, photostat copy of application addressed to the Minister of Interior has been annexed. This application appears to have been made against Assistant Director, A,N.F., Karachi by the son of applicant/accused, It does not bear any date or any endorsement, Even no postal receipt or Courier Service receipt has been filed to substantiate the allegation regarding the despatch of the application prior to the involvement of applicant/accused in the *sent case. It is mentioned in the said application that the A.N.F. Persons demanded illegal gratification from them for the release of applicant/accused. In such circumstances, particularly when demand of illegal gratification was made, the son of applicant/accused could have easily got a trap arranged by the Anti-Corruption Police or through F.I.A. Authorities. Therefore, this contention merits no consideration.
14. ' Merely because the applicant/accused is contractor and he owns a car would be no ground for grant of bail.
15. ' The citations in case of Nasir Khan v. The State 1997 M LD 1473, Muhammad Usman and 2 others v.
16. The State 1992 SCM R 489, State v. Bashir and others PLD 1997 SC 408, Aksar Khan v. The State 1995 M LD 1237 relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
17. The upshot of the above discussion is that the bail plea of applicant/ accused is devoid of merits and consequently, the same stands dismissed.
18. ' The observations made hereinabove are of tentative nature and they shall not in any way influence the trial Court while finally disposing of the case, which, needless to say, will be decided upon the final evaluation of evidence brought on record.