HIDAYATULLAH vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered against the petitioner, a government employee, under the Drugs Act, 1976. The petitioner sought bail after the Drug Court, Peshawar, refused his initial application. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail pending trial given the nature of the allegations and the statutory framework. The petitioner contended that the arrest was based on suspicion, the seized materials were owned by co-accused relatives, the items did not constitute drugs under the relevant Act, and the procedural requirements for sampling and chemical analysis were not met. The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated since his arrest and that the alleged offence was not punishable by imprisonment exceeding ten years. Holding that the case fell within the purview of further inquiry into guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court accepted the bail application, establishing the principle that where the guilt of an accused requires further inquiry, bail should be granted.
- Does a case involving allegations under the Drugs Act 1976, where the maximum punishment is less than ten years, qualify for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the status of an accused as a government servant a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding on a post-arrest bail application?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to establish that the seized material strictly falls within the definition of drugs provided under the Drugs Act 1976?
- Section 23(1)(A)(i), Drugs Act 1976
- Section 23(1)(A)(vii), Drugs Act 1976
- Section 23(1)(b), Drugs Act 1976
- Section 23(1)(c), Drugs Act 1976
- Section 27(a), Drugs Act 1976
- Section 27(b), Drugs Act 1976
- Section 3(v)(g), Drugs Act 1976
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---Through this petition. Hidayatullah, petitioner, statedly an employee of Health Department, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,1098 registered at Police Station Faqir Abad, District Peshawar on 19-10-2005 for an offence under sections 23-1(A)(i) (vii) (b)(c) & 27 (a)
(b) Drugs Act, 1976.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail on refusal of the same by learned Chairman, Drug Court, Peshawar by his order dated 25-10-2005.
3. Mr. Sher Afgan Khattak, Advocate for the petitioner, in support of the bail application, vehemently contended that the petitioner has been arrested merely on the basis of suspicion; that the material collected from the premises is owned by co-accused Rovaid Jan, Jawad Khan and Fawad Khan'who are relatives of the petitioner; that the so-called drugs do not fall within the definition provided in section 3 (v) (g) of Drugs Act, 1976; that the material collected is a herbal product and the Drugs Inspector or Provincial Quality Control Board has no lawful authority to conduct raid or make report to the police and that the F.I.R. Has been lodged without taking samples and obtaining chemical report from the laboratory.
4. As against that Mr. Wasim Tariq, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail application maintaining that the concession of bail has been refused to the petitioner for valid reasons and the impugned order is not open to legitimate exception.
5. Be that as it may, without highlighting merits of the case, I find that the petitioner is in jail ever since his arrest on 19-10-2005. The petitioner is stated to be a government servant, which fact has not been denied by the opposite side. The offence with which the petitioner has been charged is not punishable with imprisonment more than 10 years. This Court agrees with what has been, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This is a case of further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. The application is accepted and the petitioner is granted bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Above are the reasons of my short order dated 18-11-2005.