' Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,231 of 2001, dated 1-6-2001 under section 9 of C.N.S.A., 1997 read with Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979).
2. Briefly stated the facts are that during the investigation of case pertaining to F.I.R. No,230 of 2001 the accused/petitioner led to the recovery of narcotics weighing 1500 grams Charas. The petitioner applied for bail, which was refused by the learned A.S.-I., Bahawalptir vide order, dated 19-6-2001.
Hence the instant petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Special Prosecutor for the State.
4. Stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that prior to the registration of this case, F.I.R.
No,230 of 2001 was registered for the recovery of 300 grams heroin, 8 Kgs. Charas and 1 Kg. Opium, that the said F.I.R. Was registered against Mehmood alias Mooda husband of the petitioner, Tariq Latif a brother of the petitioner as well as the petitioner, that the petitioner is on bail in the said case, that the instant case has been registered against the petitioner although there could be only one case even if the alleged recovery had been made at the instance of the present petitioner. He further contends that the very raid is not warranted by law as no search warrant was obtained by the raiding officer. He further contends that the report of Chemical Examiner has not so far been received and the petitioner is in jail since her arrest and has also given birth to a child, that petitioner being detained in jail with a suckling baby is entitled to the relief of bail and has placed reliance upon Mst. Nusrat v. The State 1996 SCM R 973. In support of his contention regarding non- compliance of provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. He has placed reliance upon Muhammad Mansha v.
The State 1995 SCM R 1414. He thus submits that case of the petitioner requires further probe, as such she may be admitted to bail.
5. Conversely bail application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State.
6. As per prosecution version, 1500 grams Charas has been recovered at the instance of petitioner.
The bail is being sought mainly on the grounds that she is a lady and has given birth to a child as well as non-observance of provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Both the aforementioned authorities have been produced in support of said contentions. So far as 1995 SCM R 973 is concerned, no doubt the relief of bail has been granted but that has been granted after more than 8 months of the arrest on 1-6-2001 and is in jail for the last two months and seven days. Thus the facts in hand are not identical to the facts of the said authority. So far as 1995 SCM R 1414 is concerned that is also distinguishable as the said authority relates to final disposal of the case. Thus both the authorities do not come to the rescue of the petitioner. It is also fact that co-accused of the petitioner i,e, her husband is still on pre-arrest bail. Keeping in view the attending circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, this order shall not debar the petitioner to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for the redressal of her grievance.