Gull Din vs The State through P.G., Punjab and another
This petition for post-arrest bail was brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan to determine whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to non-compliance with Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, which requires seized narcotics to be dispatched for analysis within seventy-two hours of seizure. In this case, the sample was sent after seventeen days. The Court examined whether the non-compliance with this timeline constitutes a sufficient ground for bail. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that Rule 4(2) is directory rather than mandatory. Applying the principle that non-compliance with a directory rule does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, the Court ruled that this delay alone was not a sufficient ground for granting bail. However, noting the petitioner's grievance regarding trial delays, the Court disposed of the petition with directions to the prosecution to proceed expeditiously without seeking unnecessary adjournments, and instructed the trial court to enforce this commitment.
- Whether the seventy-two hour timeline for dispatching seized narcotics under Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001 is directory or mandatory?
- Does the non-compliance with a directory procedural rule regarding the dispatch of seized narcotics automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Rule 4(2), Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001
ORDER
Qazi Faez Isa, J. Notice was issued to consider whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to the fact that rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 ('the Rules'), which provides that the seized narcotics be dispatched for analysis 'not later than seventy-two hours of the seizure', was not complied with, as the same was sent after seventeen days.
2. This Court in a number of judgments has held that the said rule is directory, including in the cases of Tariq Mehmood v State (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 39), Gul Alam v State (2011 SCMR 624) and Muhammad Sarfraz v State (2017 SCMR 1874). And, a five-member Bench of this Court, in the case of Tallat Ishaq v National Accountability Bureau (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 112) held that the non-compliance of a directory rule would not entitle the petitioner to bail. Though the Tallat Ishaq was a case under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, in our opinion, the stated principle enunciated therein would be equally applicable to cases under the narcotic laws when directory provisions are not complied with. Accordingly, the ground of non-compliance with rule 4(2) of the Rules will not on its own be a sufficient ground to entitle the petitioner to the concession of bail.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that after framing of charge no progress has been made in the trial and the case is not proceeding because the prosecution side is delaying it. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab ('APG') states that as far as the prosecution is concerned it will expeditiously proceed with the case and will not seek any unnecessary adjournment. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that if the prosecution side abides by the commitment made by the learned APG he will be satisfied and this petition may be disposed of in such terms.
4. The prosecution shall abide by the aforesaid commitment made by the APG and the learned Trial Judge will not entertain any unnecessary requests for adjournment from the prosecution side.
With such observations this petition is disposed of.