Syed Abdul Qadir Versus State
Order
Zafar Ahmed Rajput, ACJ .--- Having been rejected their earlier Crl. Bail Applications on merit and subsequent Crl. Bail Application on the ground of rule of consistency, filed in Case No.19 of 2024, arising out of Crime/FIR No. 22/2024, registered at P.S. FIA, SBC, Karachi, under sections 23 and 27 of Drugs Act, 1976 (the "Act" ), read with section 109 P.P.C, by the Drug Court of Sindh at Karachi ( "Trial Court" ), vide common order dated 08.03.2025 and order dated 11.04.2025, respectively, the applicants/accused through instant Crl. Bail Application seek the same concession from this Court.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case, as narrated in the FIR are that, on 26.07.2024, on the basis of source report that some persons were engaged in illegal manufacturing, sell, purchase of fake/un-registered and spurious drugs at secluded place adjacent to Ashra-e-Mubashira Masjid, Waziristan Chowk, Gulshan-e-Buner, New Muzaffarabad, Landhi, Karachi, a joint team comprising FIA and DRAP officials, proceeded to and raided the pointed place where the applicants were available along with labourers. The joint team found the fake/un-registered/spurious drugs and pharmaceutical manufacturing machinery. The team seized a huge stock of the drugs suspected to be spurious on Form-2 and also seized in all fourteen items related to the manufacturing material/machines used for manufacturing of the drug products including air compressor, sieve and vacuum machines, mixer, double cone mixer and other articles on Form-l. The Federal Inspector of Drugs drew samples for analysis on Form-3. After receiving permission from Director (AQ and LT) DRAP Islamabad, Mehran Khan, Sub-Inspector FIA recorded the FIR on same day i.e. 26.07.2024, on the complaint of Syed Hakim Masood, Federal Inspector of Drugs, Karachi for the offence under sections 23 and 27 of the Act and formally arrested all the above-named applicants/accused.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant due to mala fide intention and ulterior motives; that the trial before the Trial Court has remained stagnant for months due to the non-availability of quorum, which is mandatory for its lawful functioning, and following the retirement of its Chairman, the Trial Court is lying vacant with no prospect of early conclusion of trial, thereby entitling the applicants, who have been in custody for over fifteen months, to bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial; that no active or specific role has been assigned to any of the present applicants, except the allegation that one is the owner and the others are working partners, nor has any Incriminating material, machinery, or drugs been recovered from their possession; that the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C; hence, grant of bail to the applicants is a rule and refusal an exception; that the applicants are not previous convicts or hardened offenders, and all prosecution witnesses are government officials hence, there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence; therefore, the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on post-arrest bail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600), Rasham Din v. The State through Advocate-General of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and another [2022 PCr.LJ 146 (SC AJ&K)] and Muhammad Zeshan v. The State (2017 PCr.LJ Note 113 (Sindh)].
4. Conversely, learned DAG has opposed the grant of bail to the applicants on the grounds that sufficient incriminating material has been collected against them, including recovery of unregistered drugs, raw materials, and manufacturing machinery from the premises under their control; that the offence is grave and prejudicial to public health, that the applicants were found operating an unlicensed manufacturing unit in violation of the law; that the Federal Inspector of Drugs acted within his authority in coordination with FIA under proper sanction; that the plea of false implication of the applicants is an afterthought and their release at this stage may prejudice the trial and enable them to tamper with the evidence; therefore, the instant bail application merits dismissal.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. It is an admitted position that the applicants are in judicial custody since the date of their arrest i.e. 26.07.2024, for the last about sixteen months. FIA has submitted the charge-sheet against them; however, their trial is not commencing for want of quorum of the Trial Court, which should be consisted of two members and one Chairman. It goes without saying that an accused has a right to a speedy trial, and he cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period without trial. The right to a speedy trial protects individuals from being held in jail for extended periods, sometimes for years, without trial. It is a fundamental right that is integral to a fair trial and due process. It aims to bring the accused to justice as soon as possible, so that a guilty person can be punished and an innocent person can be acquitted. Speedy trial of an accused is a fundamental legal principle aimed at preventing prolonged incarceration and ensuring justice. This right is recognized in many legal systems and is intended to protect individuals from unnecessary delay in concluding their cases. In Pakistan, a speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused person, anchored in Article 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which guarantees the right to a fair and due process.
7. It is also an admitted position that despite prior information, FIA police failed to associate any private person to witness the recovery of alleged fake/un-registered/spurious drugs, details whereof have not been mentioned in the FIR with names of the drugs and quantities; as such, the guilt of the applicants falls within the ambit of further inquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. The alleged offences as defined under sections 23 (1) (a) (i) (vii) (x), 23 (1) (b) and 23 (1) (i) of the Act are punishable under section 27 (ibid) with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years or more than ten years. However, at the stage of bail, the lesser of two punishments is to be taken into consideration, as the quantum of punishment could only be decided by the Trial Court after recording of evidence.
9. We, therefore, allow the instant application and in result thereof, the applicants are admitted to post-arrest bail in the aforesaid crime/offence subject to furnishing by them solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 500,000/-( Rupees Five Lac Only ), each, and P.R. Bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
10. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the Trial Court while deciding the case of the applicants on merits. However, in case the applicant(s) misuses the concession of bail in any manner, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the same after giving him notice, in accordance with law.
JK/A-21/Sindh Application allowed.