NADEEM AMJAD vs STATE & another
The petitioner, Nadeem Amjad, sought post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 123 dated 26.7.2016, registered under Sections 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976, regarding the possession of spurious medicines at a pharmacy in Multan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offense and the evidence collected during the investigation. The Court observed that the alleged offense carried a maximum punishment of five years, thereby falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted that the samples of the recovered medicines were found to be of standard quality by the Government Analyst, and the investigation failed to establish the petitioner's ownership of the shop or that the relevant drug license was issued in his name. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's guilt required further inquiry and granted bail, emphasizing that the determination of his status remains a matter for the trial court to decide after recording evidence.
- Does an offense punishable by up to five years imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a positive report from a Government Analyst regarding the quality of medicines a valid ground for granting bail in a case involving alleged spurious drugs?
- Should bail be granted when the investigation fails to establish the petitioner's ownership of the premises where the alleged offense occurred?
- Section 23, Drugs Act 1976
- Section 27, Drugs Act 1976
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Petitioner Nadeem Amjad was booked -in case FIR No. 123 dated 26.7.2016 registered under Sections 23, 27 of Drugs Act, 1976 at Police Station Harram Gate, Multan on the report of Usman Ghani, Drug Inspector, Mumtazabad, Multan for keeping spurious medicines in his medical store known as M/s. Care and Cure Pharmacy situated at Shadman Road, Multan.
2. 2.Heard. Record perused.
3. 3.Admittedly the offence with which the petitioner has been charged entails punishment up to five years not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The sample parcels of recovered medicines sent to the office of Government Analyst, Multan were found of standard quality. So, in presence of positive report of Chemical Analyst of Drug Testing Laboratory, Punjab, Multan guilt of the petitioner requires farther probe and his case calls for further inquiry. During investigation neither present petitioner was found owner of the shop nor was any license for selling medicines/drugs issued in his name. In the circumstances, status of present petitioner is to be determined by the trial Court after recording of evidence. At this stage petitioner has made out a case for the grant of post arrest bail.
4. 4.For the reasons recorded above, we are inclined to allow to this petition and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surely in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.