SAEED ULLAH vs THE STATE
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was charged under sections 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976, read with section 13 of the Arms Ordinance and section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the recovery of alleged spurious drugs and an unlicensed weapon. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the statutory punishment prescribed for the offences under the Drugs Act, 1976. The Court held that section 23 of the Drugs Act, 1976, restricts the export, import, or manufacture for sale of spurious drugs, but mere possession is not explicitly made punishable under section 27 of the same Act. Furthermore, the Court observed that the maximum sentence for the offence under section 27 is three years of rigorous imprisonment, which falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, noting that continued incarceration pending trial would not serve the ends of justice.
- Does the Drugs Act 1976 make the mere possession of spurious drugs a punishable offence under section 27?
- Does an offence punishable by three years of rigorous imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the trial has not commenced and the offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 23, Drugs Act 1976
- Section 27, Drugs Act 1976
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.---The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,5 dated 27- 6-2006 registered under sections 23/27 of Drugs Act, 1976 read with section 13 of Arms Ordinance and section 109, P.P.C. With Police Station F.I.A. Crime Circle, Rawalpindi.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner and his co-accused is that during raid, F.I.A. Police apprehended them and on their premises, spurious substandard and unregistered drugs worth Rs,10 lacs were recovered. .30 bore unlicensed pistol was also recovered. On inquiry, licence or written legal authority was not produced by the accused persons.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
4. The petitioner has been charged for violation of section 23 of the Drugs Act, 1976. Penalty for which is provided under section 27 ibid. Section 23 provides: (1) no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf:
(a) Export, import or manufacture for sale or sell:
(i) ----
(ii) --
(iii) ---
5. Bare reading of the above quoted provision of law shows that Legislature in its wisdom has restricted export, import or manufacture for sale or selling any spurious drug. Mere possession of a spurious drug has not been made punishable under section 27 of the Drugs Act. Sentence for offence under section 27 is 3 years' R.I. Which falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner was arrested on 27-6-2006 and is behind the bars since then. Challan has been submitted in the Court after investigation. Keeping the petitioner behind the bars, when even the commencement of trial is not in sight, will not serve the ends of justice.
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.