ضمانت ، گرانٹ آف - - الجیشن آف - - موٹر سائیکل پر منشیات فروخت کرنا - - مشکوک ادویات کا درآمد کنندہ - - مزید تفتیش - استغاثہ نے درخواست گزار کے خلاف.......

 PLJ 2026 Cr.C. (Note) 21
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Muhammad Tariq Nadeem and Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh, JJ.
AHMAD ALI--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 8899-B of 2025, decided on 16.10.2025.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

- ضمانت ، گرانٹ آف - - الجیشن آف - - موٹر سائیکل پر منشیات فروخت کرنا - - مشکوک ادویات کا درآمد کنندہ - - مزید تفتیش - استغاثہ نے درخواست گزار کے خلاف مقدمہ درج کرتے وقت پنجاب ڈرگس رولز ، 2007 کی دفعہ 19 میں بیان کردہ تقاضوں کو پورا نہیں کیا ، کیونکہ وہ فارمیسی ایکٹ ، 1967 کی دفعہ 24 (1) (اے) کے تحت رجسٹرڈ شخص نہیں تھا ۔ یہ استغاثہ کی طرف سے ایک سنگین غلطی ہے ۔ - ریکارڈ درخواست گزار کی حیثیت کے بارے میں خاموش ہے چاہے وہ جعلی منشیات کا لائسنس ہولڈر ، مینوفیکچرر ، ڈسٹری بیوٹر یا درآمد کنندہ ہو - - وہ ڈیلیوری بوائے کے طور پر ایک ملازم کا بیٹا ہونے کا دعوی کرتا ہے - - ان تمام حقائق اور حالات کی عارضی تشخیص پر ، ہائی کورٹ کا خیال ہے کہ درخواست گزار کا معاملہ "مزید تفتیش" کے دائرہ کار میں آتا ہے جیسا کہ ضابطہ فوجداری. کی دفعہ 497 کی ذیلی دفعہ (2) کے ذریعہ تصور کیا گیا ہے ، جو اسے ضمانت کی منظوری کے صوابدیدی ریلیف کی منظوری کا حقدار بناتا ہے ۔   

----S. 497(2)--Drugs Act, 1976 (XXXI of 1976), S. 27(1)(a)--Bail, grant of--Allegation of--Stocking selling drugs on motor bike--Importer of surious drugs--Further inquiry--Prosecution has not fulfilled requirements outlined in Section 19 of Punjab Drugs Rules, 2007 while registering case against petitioner, as he was not registered person under Section 24 (1) (a) Of Pharmacy Act, 1967--This is a serious lapse on part of prosecution--Record is silent about status of petitioner whether he was license holder, manufacturer, distributer or importer of spurious drugs--He claims to be a son of one employee as delivery boy--On tentative assessment of all these facts and circumstances, High Court is of considered view that case of petitioner falls within purview of “further inquiry” as envisaged by sub-section (2) of Section 497 of Cr.P.C., entitling him to grant of discretionary relief of grant of bail.           [Para 3 & 4] A & B

Mr. Nadeem Ahmad Tarar, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Mehrooz Aziz Khan Niazi, AAG for State.

Date of hearing: 16.10.2025.

Order

Petitioner (Ahmad Ali) seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. C-438/25 dated 04.09.2025, for offence under Section 27(1) (a) of Drug Act, 1976 and Rules Framed thereunder registered at P.S. FIA/CC, District Multan.

2.       Concise facts of the case are that on 28.04.2025 at about 07.00 p.m. the area Drug Inspector Muhammad Ali Khalil along with Sabir Ali, Drug Controller, Shershah Town Multan, Qaiser Iqbal, SHO/Inspector FIA, Multan and Muhammad Akram, Khalasi O/o CEO (DHA), Multan caught Malik Ahmad Ali Bhutta son of Malik Ghulam Fareed Bhutta resident of House No. 121, Ward No. 7, Bairon Pak Gate, Mohallah Dholian Wala, Multan in Qamar-ud-Din Dawa Khana Wali Gali stocking/selling Drugs on Motorbike bearing No. MNL-9230 and recovered and seized 03 different types of drugs on Form-5 and also took samples of these drugs on Form-4 for test analysis and Drug Testing Lab Multan declared questioned drugs SUPRIOUS. Hence the case was reported to District Quality Control Board Multan who granted permission for registration of FIR against the petitioner.

2.       Heard. Record perused.

3.       A bare perusal of the record reveals that the prosecution has not fulfilled the requirements outlined in Section 19 of the Punjab Drugs Rules, 2007 while registering the case against the petitioner, as he was not registered person under Section 24 (1) (a) of the Pharmacy Act, 1967. This is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution. It is also noticed that the record is silent about the status of the petitioner whether he was license holder, manufacturer, distributer or importer of the spurious drugs. He claims to be an employee of one Junaid Fareed son of Nadeem Bhutta as delivery boy.

4.       On tentative assessment of all these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of “further inquiry” as envisaged by sub-section (2) of Section 497 of Cr.P.C., entitling him to grant of discretionary relief of grant of bail.

5.       For what has been discussed above, instant petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

6.       Needless to mention here that observations made in this order are tentative and shall not prejudice the case of either party in the trial. It is further made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, then the learned trial Court would be competent to cancel the bail of the petitioner without making any reference to this Court.

(A.A.K.)          Bail allowed