Pakistan Case Law
2013 MLD 140

SAJID IQBAL vs THE STATE and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2013 MLD 140
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No,2699 of 2011
Date2011-08-26
Judge(s)Muhammad Qasim Khan and Mehmood Maqbool Bajwa
ResultBail allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who is accused of offenses under the Drug Act 1976. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the alleged offenses and the duration of his incarceration. The court observed that the petitioner was charged under Section 23 of the Drug Act 1976, punishable under Section 27 of the same Act. The court held that because the minimum sentence prescribed for these offenses does not meet the threshold of the prohibitory clause, the offense is bailable in nature. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner had been in judicial custody for ten months without the submission of a challan, and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying continued detention. Consequently, the court granted the bail petition, emphasizing that indefinite detention serves no useful purpose, especially where the accused has no prior criminal record and the prosecution process is delayed. The court admitted the petitioner to bail subject to the furnishing of a bail bond.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does an offense under the Drug Act 1976, where the minimum sentence is less than the threshold of the prohibitory clause, fall within the prohibitory clause for the purpose of bail?
  • Is the prolonged detention of an accused without the submission of a challan a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Can bail be withheld in cases where the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause and no exceptional circumstances exist?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 23, Drug Act 1976
  • Section 27, Drug Act 1976
post-arrest bailDrug Act 1976prohibitory clausejudicial custodymisbranded drugsspurious drugs

ORDER

' Post' arrest bail has been sought by the petitioner in case F.I.R. No, 114 of 2010 registered under sections 23 and 27 of the Drug Act 1976, (Act XXXI of 1976) at Police Station Muzafarabad, Multan.

2. Precise allegation contained in the F.I.R. Recorded on the strength of complaint of Ehsan Ahmed, Drug Inspector, is that on 7-9-2009 he along with other officials inspected Sajid Clinic and Bismillah Zacha Bacha Center, Multan and in the presence of petitioner took 11 different types of drugs on form 4 and 10. Different types of drugs on form 5 for analysis and as per report of Drug testing laboratory four drugs out of eleven on form -4 were found spurious and six were declared mis- branded and un-registered. Matter was reported to Provincial Quality Control Board, Lahore seeking permission for registration of case, who after serving the petitioner with show cause notice and observing all codal and legal formalities accorded permission for registration of case.

3. Heard adversaries and perused the record.

The petitioner has been charged for violation of section 23 of the Drug Act, which is punishable under section 27 of the Drug Act, 1976 providing punishment with imprisonment which shall not be less than 5 years or more than 10 years and with fine which may extend to five lac rupees.

' Nevertheless minimum sentence has to be taken into consideration in order to determine whether the offence falls within prohibitory clause. The offence as such does not fall within prohibitory clause. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances referred to in case of "TARIQ BASHIR and 5 others v. The State" (PLD 1995 SC 34) withholding of post arrest bail is not intention of law. The petitioner is in judicial lock up for last ten months. Challan has not yet been submitted and it will take considerable time for its presentation as objections are still to be removed by the Investigating agency for which purpose we called officiating S.P. (Investigation) with direction to gear up the process. Further detention of the petitioner as such will not serve any useful purpose and that too for an indefinite period. The petitioner had no previous history and record.

5. Pursuant to above discussion we are inclined to accept the petition and as such while allowing the same petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bond in a sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

Cited by 4 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.