GHULAM SHABBIR and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by four petitioners accused of selling adulterated pesticides without a valid license, an offence registered under the Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance, 1971. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the statutory framework. The Court held that the petitioners should be admitted to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the investigation had been completed, the petitioners were not previous convicts, and the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Relying on established precedent, the Court affirmed that where offences are non-prohibitory and the accused are not repeat offenders, bail is generally appropriate once the investigation is concluded and the accused are in judicial custody.
- Are offences under the Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance 1971 subject to the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the completion of an investigation and the confinement of accused persons in judicial lock-up constitute grounds for granting bail in non-prohibitory offences?
- Section 21(a), Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance 1971
- Section 21(2)(a), Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance 1971
- Section 23(a), Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance 1971
- Section 23(b), Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance 1971
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Ghulam Shabbir and Shahzad Aslam petitioners through Cr. M. No.1249-B of 2000 and Muhammad Abbas and Khalil Ahmad petitioners through Cr. M. No. 1339-B of 2003 have sought their post-arrest bait in case F.I.R. No.323 registered at Police Station City, Ahmadpur East on 15-9-2003 for an offence under section 21(a) of Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance, 1971 as amended by Act No.XXXIX of 1997. Subsequently sections 21(2)(a) and 23(a)(b) of the said Ordinance were added.
2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that on secret information the complainant formulated a raiding party and caught red-handed while they were selling pesticide without having a licence to sell the same. The pesticide was taken into possession by the complainant and samples were sent to the chemical laboratory. According to the report of the Pesticide Testing Laboratory the medicine was found to be adultered.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. It has been noticed that the petitioners have been sent to judicial lock-up after completion of investigation; none of the offences attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioners are not previous convict. In the, circumstances following the dictum laid down by this Court in Muhammad Ameer v. The State (1973 PCr.LJ 205), I admit the petitioners to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court .