1. This application for bail is moved on behalf of the applicant Liaquat Ali facing Trial in a case under section 6/9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances, Act 1997 vide Crime No,4 of 1998 of Police Station, Sukkur Narcotics Control Board.
2. Precisely the facts of the prosecution case are that one Abdullah Shah was arrested in Crime No,3 of 1998. During investigation he disclosed that he had purchased narcotic substance from the applicant/accused Liaquat whereby S.I.P. Naeemuddin of Anti-Narcotic Force Sukkur alongwith his subordinate staff left for Shikarpur in a Government vehicle. The complainant also took Abdullah Shah accused. The complainant party was headed by the Assistant Director Muhammad Siddique Raja. The complainant party arrived at the house of Liaquat Ali. On a knock the door of the house was opened by one person. Abdullah Shah identified that person to be the present applicant/accused Liaquat Ali. On enquiry the accused Liaquat Ali admitted to be dealing in narcotics. The house was searched. A basket was found lying in the corner of bath room. It was opened in the presence of witnesses P.C. Abdul Rashid and P.C. Abdul Razak. It was found containing 11 pieces of Charas and five pieces of opium. The weight of Charas came to be 2750 grams and the opium became one Kilogram. Ten grams from each slab of Charas in all 110 grams Charas and ten grams from each piece of opium in all fifty grams of opium were recovered and sealed as samples. Thereafter, the complainant brought the accused and the case property where he lodged the report.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the following grounds:-- The applicant is innocent and he is falsely implicated due to mala fide intention. From very face of the F.I.R. Seems to be false and managed one. The P.Ws. And Mashirs of recovery are police personnel hence interested and set-up. The Charas and opium have been foisted upon the applicant/accused; recovery of Charas and opium is not from the exclusive possession and the opium is opined by the Chemical Examiner to be of non excise quality. The applicant is involved on the pointation of arrested accused Abdullah Shah of Crime No,3 of 1998, but his judicial confession was not got recorded and even the applicant was not put to an identification test. The less quantity of narcotic substances was taken for the chemical analysis, as such at the most offence would fall under section 9(b) of Control of Norctic Substances Act, 1997. The applicant was arrested on 13-9- 1998 and since more than a year he is behind the bars, but the case has not concluded and the delay in trial is not attributed to the applicant. The applicant is neither dangerous desperate or hardened criminal nor he is previous convict. The earlier bail application filed on behalf of applicant before this Court was dismissed as not pressed and in the meanwhile the trial Court was directed to record evidence of the material witnesses within the period of four months but the trial Court has failed to comply with such a direction due to non-production of the accused by the jail authorities. The bail application, after prescribed period was moved before the learned trial Court which was rejected vide order, dated 25-9-1999. The non-conclusion of the trial due to non- production of accused by the jail authorities cannot be attributed to the applicant.
4. The learned counsel has relied on the following case-laws:--
(1) Ashoke v. The Sate 1997 SCM R 436.
(2) Gul Hasan Penhyar v. The State 1997 SCM R 390.
(3) Jadeed Gul v. The State 1998 SCM R 1124.
(4) Muhammad Aslam v. The State 1999 SCM R 2147.
5. It is apparent from the case laws cited above that bail was granted by the Honourable Supreme Court in cases where the trial had not been concluded in spite of directions to the effect. The reason for non-conclusion was non-availability of Presiding Officer. Bail was granted as it was not considered to be the fault of the accused that the officer was not available. Similar view has been taken in the case of Gul Hasan Penhyar v. The State where six months period was given for the conclusion of the trial. In the case of Ashoke v. The State, bail was granted by the Hounorable Supreme Court who observed that in spite time being allowed for recording of evidence delay took place. The delay was not the fault of the accused. Similar views have been taken in the case of Muhammad Aslam. v. The State reported in 1999 SCM R 2147.
6. In the above case directions had been issued by the Division Bench to record the evidence of the complainant, Mashir and Investigating Officer within four months. This order was passed on 13-5- 1999. Today it is March 2000 and according to the counsel, the matter has not proceeded up till now.
7. Under the circumstances and in view of the citations given above, bail is granted to the applicant/accused in the sum of Rs,2,50,000 (Two lacs and fifty thousand and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.