Ghulam Muhammad vs State, etc
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 195/2020 registered under Sections 23, 27, and 30 of the Drug Act, 1976 at Police Station Chowk Azam, District Layyah, following the recovery of a large quantity of unregistered medicines. The core legal question was whether mere possession of unregistered medicines without evidence of sale or chemical analysis by a Government Analyst constitutes an offence under the relevant provisions warranting continued detention. The Lahore High Court held that mere possession does not constitute an offence under Section 23 of the Drugs Act, 1976, and in the absence of chemical examination reports establishing spuriousness, the case called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that the lack of forensic analysis and absence of proof regarding the sale or offering for sale of unregistered medicines brings the matter within the scope of further inquiry, entitling the accused to post-arrest bail.
- Does mere possession of unregistered medicines constitute an offence under Section 23 of the Drug Act 1976?
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when samples are not sent to the Government Analyst?
- Does the absence of evidence showing an intent to sell unregistered medicines attract further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
- Section 23, Drug Act 1976
- Section 27, Drug Act 1976
- Section 30, Drug Act 1976
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this application the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 195/2020 dated 14-4-2020 registered at police Station Chowk Azam, District Layyah, registered under Sections 23, 27, 30 of the Drug Act, 1976.
2. Briefly , the prosecution case is that a huge quantity of unregistered medicines were recovered from him when he was at Fatehpur Road (opposite Madina Medical Store), Chowk Azam, Layyah.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner is alleged to be a peddler and was arrested from a thoroughfare. However , there is no evidence that he was selling or even trying to sell any medicine to anybody . There is also nothing on record to show that the samples from the recovered medicines were sent to the Government Analyst which could establish that they were spurious. Mere possession of unregistered medicine does not constitute any offence under Section 23 of the Drugs Act, 1976. Accordingly , further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. is required to determine the petitioner's guilt.
5. The petitioner is behind the bars since 14-4-2020. He is not required by the police for any further probe. His continuous incarceration would not advance the prosecution case.
6. In view of the foregoing, this application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arre st bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.