1. ' Applicant Fayyaz is facing charge under section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in Crime No,7 of 2003 Police Station Excise Police Circle Tando Muhammad Khan.
2. ' According to the prosecution story on 10-12-2003 at 5-30 p.m. In presence of two police Mashirs 1000 grams of Charas and Rs,50 were recovered on the personal search of the applicant and such F.I.R. Was lodged on the same day at 6-30 p.m. By Inspector Jameel Ahmed Rajput of Excise Police Circle, Tando Muhammad Khan.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime and the Charas has been foisted upon him. He urged that in case the recovery of Charas was made from the applicant an hour before lodging of F.I.R. Then in normal course names of the Mashirs should have been mentioned in the F.I.R. This fact clearly creates doubt in the case of prosecution that the Mashirnama of recovery was prepared subsequent to the lodging of F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel further contends that the offence for which the applicant has been charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., therefore, he is entitled for bail.
5. ' Mr. Anwar Ansari learned State Counsel did not dispute that the names of two police Mashirs have not 'been disclosed in the F.I.R. However, relying on the case of Afzal Ahmed v. The State 2003 SCM R 573, he contended that even for the offences where the punishment is up to 7 years, bail can be refused in appropriate cases.
6. ' We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel and perused the case record which confirms that though the recovery of Charas has been shown from the applicant an hour earlier to the lodging of F.I.R. But the names of Mashirs, who are stated to be police personnel, have not been disclosed in the F.I.R. Such lapse on the part of the prosecution creates reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the Mashirnama of recovery, and benefit of such lapse can be extended to applicant even at bail stage. In our view the case of applicant thus, needs further inquiry, therefore, he is entitled for bail.
7. ' In view of the above, the applicant is admitted to bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.