| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3866 2025 SLD 3866 = 2025 SHC 1550 |
Criminal Bail Application No.1141 of 2025. Criminal Bail Application No.1211 of 2025
KHALID HUSSAIN SHAHANI, J
Through Mr. Shoukat Hayat, Advocate Through Mr. Raja Babar Hamid, advocate.
Applicants : i. Qurban Ali son of M. Chand Badshah ii. Rizwan son of Muhammad Chand Badshah Applicant : Nisar Ahmed son of Muhammad Younus
VERSUS
The State
Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
Section: 9(2)(9), 14, 15,2(za),72-74
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497(2),510
Law: General Clauses Act (X of 1897)
Section: 24-A
Summary:
The applicants sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics smuggling case involving legally manufactured pharmaceutical drugs alleged to be controlled substances under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA). The court found significant procedural and evidentiary deficiencies in the chemical analysis report, as well as unresolved legal ambiguities regarding the classification of the substances. Thus, the applicants' case qualified for further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C., and bail was granted subject to sureties.
Core Points:
- Applicants were arrested in a case under Sections 9(2)(9), 14, and 15 of the CNS Act, 1997.
- The recovered drugs (Rivotril, Pregabalin, and Tramadol) are legitimate pharmaceutical products registered under the Drugs Act, 1976.
- The chemical analysis report was delayed and lacked essential scientific details including protocols, purity percentage, and legal classification.
- There is no direct or documentary evidence linking the applicants to ownership, export, or financing of the narcotics consignment.
- The drugs in question do not clearly fall within the statutory definition of psychotropic substances under the CNSA; classification is legally debatable.
- Precedents (Mairajuddin, Muhammad Zafar Iqbal cases) support bail where pharmaceutical drug classification under CNSA is ambiguous.
- The trial court's earlier bail refusal lacked reasoning and ignored the saving clauses of overlapping laws, violating Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act.
- The quantity of Clonazepam (Rivotril) recovered is "small quantity," attracting lesser penalties and not falling under prohibitory offenses barring bail.
- The court deemed the case fit for further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. and granted bail with surety and bonds.
- Trial court must independently assess evidence without being influenced by this bail order.
Law and Section Table
| Law | Section(s) | Citation / Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Control of Narcotic Substances Act | 9(2)(9), 14, 15 | Core penal provisions invoked in FIR |
| Control of Narcotic Substances Act | 2(za) | Definition of psychotropic substances |
| Control of Narcotic Substances Act | 72-74 | Saving clauses relating to overlapping legislation |
| Criminal Procedure Code | 497(2) | Bail on grounds of further inquiry |
| Criminal Procedure Code | 510 | Admissibility of chemical analyst report |
| General Clauses Act 1897 | 24-A | Requirement of reasoned judicial orders |
| Control of Narcotic Substances Act | Chemical Analysis Rules | Rules 5 and 6 (chemical report timelines and protocols) |
| Drugs Act | - | Registration and regulation of pharmaceutical drugs |
| Constitutional Principles | Article 4 | Principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege) |
O R D E R