Muhammad Qasim and others vs The State and others
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving offenses under the Drugs Act, 1976, the DRAP Act, 2012, and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the unauthorized manufacturing, stocking, and selling of drugs and therapeutic goods. The core legal question addressed is whether the petitioners are entitled to bail on the basis of the rule of consistency, given that the principal accused had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting bail to the petitioners based on the rule of consistency since they were on a better footing than the co-accused already released. Additionally, the Court initiated a separate suo motu case regarding the regulatory framework for alternate medicines and their dispensation. The key principle laid down is that where a co-accused or principal accused has been granted bail, other accused persons standing on an equal or better footing are entitled to bail under the rule of consistency.
- Whether an accused person is entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency when the principal accused has already been conceded bail?
- Can a criminal petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal and allowed for the grant of bail?
- What constitutes the regulatory framework for alternate medicines and their dispensation under the DRAP Act, 2012 and the Drugs Act, 1976?
- Section 23, Drugs Act 1976
- Section 27, Drugs Act 1976
- Section 2(ii), DRAP Act 2012
- Section 27-2, DRAP Act 2012
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MUSHIR ALAM, J.---From the record, it appears that there is some confusion and even the matter has been adjourned a number of time to seek assistance from the learned Attorney General for Pakistan as well as the learned Advocate General concerned as regard the regulatory framework for the alternate medicines, it is recorded with great concern and utmost dismay that neither the learned Additional Attorney General nor the concerned Advocate General or even the team of officers in attendance are clear in their minds as to how the alternate medicines are properly brought into regulatory framework and they vaguely are concerned as to manufacturing and import of such alternate medicines. When inquired as to whether such dispensers (Pensaris) and their sale points are registered?, more specifically inquired about such outlets situated at Abpara Market in Islamabad, which is a common sight, it is stated that they are neither enlisted nor inspected to their knowledge. They have put the responsibility on the task force constitute d and comprises of selected officers from all the Provinces. None of the officers present in Court are aware of the responsibility as to who regulates such alternate medicines.
2. As regard the above matter , we direct the office to make a separate file, register it as Suo Motu Case and place the same before the Honourable Chief Justice for placing the same before an appropriate Bench to consider the regulatory framework for such alternate medicines, their dispensation either in raw form or in the form of finishing products so as to ensure that people are not haunted for being looted and harmed. There appears to be no awareness amongst the persons involved in dealing with such products at dif ferent levels.
3. Coming to the merits of the instant bail matter . It appears that the petitioners, Muhammad Qasim and Khurram Shahzad sons of Anwar-u-Haq, seek bail in Crime No.950/2020 dated 03.10.2020, for the offences under sections 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976, section 27-2 of the DRAP Act, 2012 and section 109, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Toba Tek Singh, on the allegation of their involvement in manufacturing/stocking and selling the drugs/therapeutic goods in violation of the laws of the land.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Although the learned prosecutor states that the medicines in question fall within the definition of alternate medicines within contemplation of section 2(ii) of the DRAP Act, 2012, yet the principal accused, Israr Ahmed has since been conceded bail.
6. Having gone through the available record, we find that the present petitioners are still on the better footing, therefore, following the rule of consistenc y, the petitioners are also conceded to bail subject to furnishing of solvent surety bonds to the tune of Rs.100,000/- (rupees one hundred thousand) each with one surety each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
7. Needless to state that any observation contained in this order is of tentative nature and the learned Trial Court shall decide the main case in accordance with law without being influenced from any observation contained therein.
The petitioners are directed to extend full co-operation with the prosecution/inves tigation and in the proceedings regularly and in case any misuse and abuse of concession of bail is found on their part, the learned Trial Court is at liberty to cancel the petitioners' bail.
8. The petition is converted into an appeal and allowed in the terms noted above.