' MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.--- The facts leading to the present application for bail are the applicants/accused Shoukat Mehmood and Daud Khan are facing trial in Special Case No,17 of 1998 before learned Special Judge, Karachi West, which is punishable under sections 14, 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. It arises out of F.I.R. No,27 of 1998 of Police Station Pak Colony, Karachi.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant/Inspector Shahabullah Khan on 13-3-1998 are reproduced herein below:-- "Today, I, Inspector, alongwith A.S.-I. Syed Ashraf Hussain Shah, H.C. Muhammad Itiaz 334, Haleem Shah 48, Muhammad Yousif 626; Yousif Ali C'heema 490, Abdul Fata 2317, Sohail Ahmed 2828, Bacha Hayat 2374 and Muhammad Aslam 1731 arrested accused Umer Hayat on spy information near Jhonpra Hotel, Haroonabad and recovered 10 Kgs. Charas from his possession. On interrogation he disclosed the names of Shoukat Mehmood and Daud Khan and location of their godown situated at Plot No,D-192. On his pointation in presence of witnesses Shabbir Ahmed and Syed Madad Ali Shah raid was made at about 8-5 p.m. In presence of accused Shoukat Mehmood and Daud Khan search was made and from a room on western corner of the said premises two bags of Charas (cannabis resin) were recovered. The bag bearing No,555 contained 40 Kgs. Of Charas (Cannabis resin) and another bag contained 40. Kgs. Of Charas. The total weight of Charas was 80 Kgs. One slipper of Charas (cannabis resin) was taken from each bag and it was separately sealed for chemical analysis. The remaining narcotic was sealed separately. Both the accused were arrested. The accused and property were brought at the police station. The concerned S.S.P.
Was informed accordingly and report was lodged."
3. During the course of investigation case was transferred from C.I.A. To Anti-Narcotic Force on administrative ground on 14-4-1998. The Anti-Narcotic Force Authorities after usual investigation submitted the challan (charge-sheet) before the trial Court wherein both the applicants/accused were placed in Column II under section 173(2), Cr.P.C. However, the trial Court took the cognizance of the matter and joined them as accused and framed charge against them under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
4. The applicant/accused applied for bail before the trail Court but it was declined to them by impugned order, dated 26-3-1999.
5. We have heard Mr. Inamullah Khan, learned counsel on behalf of the applicants/accused. In spite of the service of notice on Anti-Narcotic Force authorities and learned Deputy Attorney- General, none appeared on behalf of the State.
6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that the applicants/accused are innocent and that they have been falsely implicated in the case, that one Mautbar Khan was Chowkidar of the alleged godown wherefrom Anti-Narcotic Force Authorities recovered 2960 Kgs.
Charas in presence of P.W, Mautbar Khan on 10-3-1998; that the Charas belonged to the Shahal Akbar, Syed Karim, Lal Muhammad, Khial Marjan, Badshah Khan and Barkat Ali, who slipped away from the spot in a Suzuki, when raid was made by the Anti-Narcotic Force Authorities and at the instance of those absconding accused present applicants/accused have been roped in the case; that both the private recovery witnesses are police touts and they are not trustworthy; that both the applicants/accused were declared innocent during investigation by Anti-Narcotic Force Authorities; that because of such reason they were placed in Column II, hence the case necessitates further inquiry, as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. And applicants/accused are entitled to bail are devoid of force.
7. We have carefully perused the material placed on record and gone through the impugned order.
8. It will be pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of the order passed by the trial Court while rejecting the bail plea:-- "Before discussing the merits of case I will like to give details of this case wherein because of tussle in two different department of Government, i,e, C.I.A. And Anti-Narcotic Force, two different challans were submitted for the same offence, one by C.I.A. And the other by Anti-Narcotic Force, C.I.A. In his challan has shown applicants Shoukat Mehmood and Daud Khan as accused in custody, whereas Anti-Narcotic Force Authorities had shown both these persons in Column No,II under section 173(2) and in contents of challan arrest of both these persons by C.I.A. And recovery from them has been shown as file and under these circumstances both Investigating Officers of C.I.A. And Anti-Narcotic Force were called to explain the situation that if accused involved in this case are innocent, then where from case property consists of 80 Kgs. Charas as has been shown by both Anti-Narcotic Force and Anti-Narcotic Force was registered, hence under these circumstances I found that how game has been placed by very agencies, who have been designed to control such-like offences, to safe accused hence in these circumstances case requires further enquiry and at this stage in spite of report of Anti-Narcotic Force Authorities that as case has registered by C.I.A. West is false and frivolous and I am not going to consider their plea because of- quantity of big narcotic substances is involved therein.
9. The perusal of record and impugned order shows that a huge quantity i,e, 80 Kgs. Of Charas (cannabis resin) was recovered from the possession of applicant/accused and they were apprehended on the spot.
10. The contention that accused were made victims of enmity with the absconding accused is devoid of force. Except the solitary word of applicants/accused, no material has been placed on record from which it could be inferred that the case is outcome of enmity and that the police entangled them falsely in this case.
11. So far as the contention that the Mashirs of recovery are stock-witnesses has also no force. No documentary or other material has been produced from which it could be inferred that they are stock-witnesses. Moreover, evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be discarded in every case merely on the ground that a particular person acted as a prosecution witness in some other cases.
12. It is well-settled that for the purpose of grant or refusal of bail Court has to make tentative assessm ent. Law does not warrant the deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage.
13. The contention that Anti-Narcotic Force Authorities declared the applicants/accused innocent and that, therefore, they are entitled to bail is also misconceived.
14. The opinion of a Police Officer or an Investigating Agency is not binding upon the Courts. If the trial Court upon examination of material comes to a just conclusion that the accused, who were let off during the course of investigation or thereafter by prosecution under section 169, Cr.P.C. They could be legally joined as co-accused by-the trial Court.
15. Consequently, looking towards the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants/accused that this is a fit case for grant of bail.
16. The authorities in the cases of Wali Muhammad v. Mian Muhammad Abrar Khan and others 1969 PCr.LJ 1111, Manzoor and others v. The State PLD 1972 SC 81, Khushi Muhammad v. The State 1978 SCMR 360, Muhammad Aslam v. The State 1982 PCr.LJ 529, Muhammad Saleem Raza v. The State PLD 1983 Lah. 155, Hassan Arshad and others v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 466, Syed lqbal Hassan and others v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ Note 278 at p.196. Farzand Ali v. The State 1993 MLD 2548, Muhammad Ayub v The State 1993 MLD 86, Shahzaman and others v. The State PLD 1994 SC 65, Muhammad Boota v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 1974, Rahim Bux v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 1450, Muhammad Yakoob v.
The State 1998 PCr.LJ 128, Muhammad Usman v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 370, Mst. Nasreen Bibi v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1319, Gul Zaman v. The State 1999 SCMR 1271, cited by the learned counsel for the applicants/accused in support of his arguments advanced before us, are quite distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case and they are of no help to the applicants/accused.
17. Resultantly, this hail application stands dismissed. However, the E trial Court is directed to dispose of the main case according to law, as early as possible.
18. The observations made hereinabove are purely tentative in nature and the learned trial Court is free to arrive at its own independent conclusion while deciding the main case and it shall not be influenced by whatever is stated hereinabove.