1. ' BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.--- Petitioner, through this criminal miscellaneous, seeks post-arrest bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No,138 of 1997, dated 2-4-1997 under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1996, at Police Station City Ahmadpur East.
2. ' The prosecution case, according to F.I.R., is that on 20-4-1997, Muhammad Ramzan, S.H.O., Police Station Ahmadpur East, alongwith other police officials, was present near Chowk Jamia Masjid on patrol duty; that he was informed the petitioner was selling heroin in Chowk Naktani. On this information, Muhammad Akram son of Allah Bachaya was sent with tainted currency of Rs,50 for the purchase of heroin. Said Muhammad Akram was followed by the police party and within their view Muhammad Akram purchased one packet of heroin from the petitioner and handed over the same to the complainant. As a result, the petitioner was apprehended by the police red-handed and 497 grams of heroin, and same note of Rs,50 was recovered from the petitioner. One gram of heroin was taken as sample and sent to Chemical Examiner for its examination. The petitioner applied for post-arrest bail, which was refused vide order, dated 17-3-1999.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a period of more than two years has lapsed and the trial has not been concluded so far. It is further argued that during the trial, the alleged two public eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Akram and Mumtaz Hussain have not supported the prosecution version. It is further argued that only one gram heroin has been sent for examination which makes the whole affair doubtful. It is also argued that the alleged recovery of heroin is less than one Kg. And the maximum sentence as provided under the law is seven years and does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. ' Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application, as the trial is in progress, according to him. Only the police officials are to be examined. The petitioner was apprehended red-handed with heroin and is involved in a heinous offence, and is not entitled for concession of the bail.
5. ' We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The statements of two persecution witnesses Mumtaz Hussain and Muhammad Akram were recorded by the trial Court and they had not supported the prosecution version. The recovery of the alleged heroin from the possession of the petitioner has been made doubtful. The remaining witnesses will not in any way strengthen the case of the prosecution. The petitioner is already in jail for more than two years. 'There is no likelihood that the trial will be concluded in very near future.
7. ' In view of the above, we allow the petitioner to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,100,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.