' CH: IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.----Mushak Alam petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,141, dated 14-5-2002, under section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) and Articles 3/4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order No,4 of 1979, Police Station Mehmood Kot, District Muzaffargarh.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 14-6-2002, 120 grams Charas wrapped in polythene envelope was recovered from his possession.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been involved in the instant case by the police being in league with his business rivals; that in the investigation by a gazetted Police Officer he was found quite innocent and the case is liable to cancellation and accordingly discharge report was prepared, but the learned Magistrate concerned did not agree to the same and he due to this reason is in jail; that the reason offered by the learned Magistrate in not agreeing with the report regarding his discharge from the case is not sound and from the record; that even though, the learned Magistrate did not agree with the discharge report, there is circumstance in his favor creating doubt in the prosecution case against him and ultimately there is no chance of his conviction in the same; that in view of the finding of innocence in his favor recorded by the gazetted police officer of the rank of DSP there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he has committed a non-bailable offence and rather there is grounds for further inquiry into his guilt and when this may be position, then embargo contained in section 51 of the Act supra, will not come in the way to the grant of bail to an accused and that he is behind the bars for the last more than one month and is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned State Counsel has opposed the application mainly on the ground that opinion of the Investigating Officer regarding his innocence is not binding upon the Court and so the learned Magistrate has validly disagreed with the discharge report.
5. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the sides with the help of the available record.
6. Allegedly 120 grams Charas was recovered from his possession. The contention from his side is that he has falsely been roped in by the police being in league with his business rivals. It has been borne out from the record that DSP, Kot Addu in the investigation has found his such version to be correct. The said DSP on 22-5-2002 had prepared report regarding his discharge from the case.
Mian Muhammad Arshad Anjum, learned Civil Judge-cum-Magistrate, Kot Addu had not agreed with that report. It has appeared that on one hand he (the learned Magistrate) has mentioned that finding regarding his (petitioner) innocence is not based upon sufficient evidence but on the other; that there is no such finding on the file. Anyway, we do not feel it necessary to make any further comment on the observation of the learned Magistrate. However, suffice it would be to say here that in the investigation by a Police Officer of the rank of DSP, his above-referred version was found to be correct and the case to be false. The report regarding his discharge from the case has been prepared. This fact leads us to hold that case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. And when this may be the position, then embargo placed by section 51 of the Act supra will not come in his way to the grant of bail. He is behind the bars and stated to be non-convict.
7. In view of the same, we accept this application and admit him to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions A Judge, Muzaffargarh.