' SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---This is the second petition of petitioner No, 1 Javed Robert, his first bail petition Criminal Miscellaneous No,13933-B 'of 2011 was dismissed as withdrawn on 31-10- 2011.
2. Petitioners Javed Robert and Saleem Robert have sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,588 of 2011 dated 28-7-2011 registered under section 23/27 of the Drugs Act, 1976 at Police Station Ghaziabad, Lahore.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 27-7-2011 on the information of Messrs Star Laboratories, the complainant/Drug Inspector Aziz Bhatti Town, conducted raid at the factory owned by one Muhammad Amjad where they were found preparing and packing spurious drugs of 26-categories and sealing machine/ packing material was recovered from the spot. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. That the petitioners were apprehended at the spot while their co-accused namely Muhammad Amjad fled away.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that case against the petitioners is false and fictitious one that the petitioners were employed by Muhammad Amjad, owner of the factory and both the petitioners were only packing the medicines, and they are not responsible for any defect therein; that no private witness was associated at the time of raid; that there are serious irregularities in the raid proceedings as no necessary sanction was obtained to enter into the premises of the factory; that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners to explain their position; that owner of the factory has not yet been arrested by the police while the petitioners are facing the agony of jail; that petitioner No,2 Saleem Robert is seriously sick and he is entitled for the concession of bail on this ground as well. Places reliance on "2005 M LD 1366 (Lahore), "2002 YLR 1612 (Lahore), "1991 PCr.LJ Note 278 (Lahore). "2007 M LD 188 (Multan Bench Multan)" and "186 MLD 1691 (Lahore)".
5. On the other hand learned D.P.-G. Has opposed this petition and contended that the petitioners are specifically nominated accused of the F.I.R.; that the petitioners were found packing some medicines regarding which the report of the Government Analysis is Zero per cent of the medicines shown to be packing; that the petitioners are fully involved and there is sufficient material on record to connect the petitioners with the commission of offence; that no mala fide or ulterior motive to falsely involve the petitioners in this case has been pointed out; that all the government officials participated in the raid proceedings and all of them have supported the proceedings of the raid; that there is no legal infirmity or defect in the raid proceedings; that only tentative assessm ent is permissible at bail stage without touching the merits of the case; that show-cause notice was also given to the petitioners as required under the law but they refused to answer the same, therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned D.P.-G. For the State and perused the record.
7.At the time of raid on 27-7-2011 at 3-00 p.m. Both the petitioners were present in the drug manufacturing' factory owned by Muhammad Amjad and were busy in the preparation of medicines and packing thereof and the medicines of 26-catagories along with sealing machine and packing material was recovered from the spot while owner of the factory namely Muhammad Amjad managed his escape. Both the petitioners were served with a notice by the Drug Inspector and their explanation was called which they allegedly failed to submit. The samples of the recovered medicines were sent to the Government Analyst Testing Laboratory Punjab and according to their reports, the .Recovered medicines were found substandard and spurious. In most of the samples there was zero per cent of the constituents mentioned on the labels. The petitioners are involved in the heinous offence of preparing spurious medicines affecting the public in general.
8. In case titled "Agha Nadeem and others v. Province of Punjab and others (2005 M LD 1366 (Lahore)"; the F.I.R. Was quashed as no show-cause notice was issued to the accused before granting permission to the Drug Inspector for the registration of case and the case was required to be registered at Lahore instead Vehari but in the instant case show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners and there is no dispute regarding the place of registration of case.
9. The facts of case titled "Waheed Akbar and 2 others v. Government of the Punjab Health Department through Secretary Health, Civil Secretariat Lahore and 3 others (2002 YLR 1612 (Lahore)" are quite different from the facts of the present case. In the said case the orders passed by the Punjab Quality Control Board were assailed but here the Punjab Quality Control Board had already directed the Drug Inspector for the registration of case and the case stands registered wherein the A present application has been made by the petitioners seeking their release on bail.
10. In case titled "Syed Iqbal Hassan and another v. The State (1991 PCr.LJ Note 278 (Lahore))", the appointment of the Drug Inspector and the G6vernment Analyst was not in accordance with law, therefore, the bail was allowed.
11. The case law produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and in this case prima facie required notice was served upon the petitioner.
12. The co-accused namely Naeem But, who has been released on bail was not nominated accused of the F.I.R. And was not arrested from the spot. His case is quite distinguishable from the case of the present petitioners, who were caught red-handed while manufacturing and packing spurious drugs. We are of the considered view that the manufacturers of spurious drugs are the worst offenders against the society, therefore, they do not deserve any leniency in the shape of concession of bail. The petition in hand being without any merits stands dismissed.