Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SYED JAVED AHMAD VS Respondent: THE STATE
1992 M L D 1857
1992 M L D 1857
[Lahore]
Before Rashid Aziz Khan, .l
Syed JAVED AHMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Crl. Misc. No.1198‑B of 1992, decided on 8th April, 1992.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.498‑‑‑Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976), S.23/27‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail‑‑‑Contention was that the medicines taken in possession by Drug Inspector were not drugs as the same were used solely for treatment of birds and Government had permitted everyone to make the same in order to fight the epidemic in the birds‑‑‑Prosecution after getting instructions did not oppose the pre‑arrest bail applications‑‑‑Accused were admitted to pre‑arrest bail in circumstances.
Khan Yunus Khan for Petitioners.
Iftikhar Sipra for the State.
ORDER
Petitioners seek pre‑arrest ad interim bail in a case registered with Police Station Mozang, Lahore, for an offence under section 23/27 of Drugs Act, 1976. Allegation against the petitioners was that some drugs were taken into possession by Drug Inspector. On demand neither the petitioners produced warranty nor licence permitting them to manufacture the same.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the medicines‑taken in possession are not drugs. Submits that medicines are used solely for the treatment of birds and the Government is permitting everyone to make the same in order to fight the epidemic in the birds.
2. I have heard the learned counsel. Petitioners arc allowed ad interim pre‑arrest bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 each, with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Lahore, till 8‑4‑1992, on which date the petitioners shall appear in person. The record of the case shall also be made available.
Learned counsel for the State after instructions does not oppose the application for pre‑arrest bail. In these circumstances and for the reasons given earlier in this Court's order, dated 1‑4‑1992, the pre‑arrest bail is confirmed.
N.H.Q./J‑15/L Pre‑arrest bail confirmed.