' Post' arrest bail has been sought by the petitioner in case F.I.R. No, 114 of 2010 registered under sections 23 and 27 of the Drug Act 1976, (Act XXXI of 1976) at Police Station Muzafarabad, Multan.
2. Precise allegation contained in the F.I.R. Recorded on the strength of complaint of Ehsan Ahmed, Drug Inspector, is that on 7-9-2009 he along with other officials inspected Sajid Clinic and Bismillah Zacha Bacha Center, Multan and in the presence of petitioner took 11 different types of drugs on form 4 and 10. Different types of drugs on form 5 for analysis and as per report of Drug testing laboratory four drugs out of eleven on form -4 were found spurious and six were declared mis- branded and un-registered. Matter was reported to Provincial Quality Control Board, Lahore seeking permission for registration of case, who after serving the petitioner with show cause notice and observing all codal and legal formalities accorded permission for registration of case.
3. Heard adversaries and perused the record.
The petitioner has been charged for violation of section 23 of the Drug Act, which is punishable under section 27 of the Drug Act, 1976 providing punishment with imprisonment which shall not be less than 5 years or more than 10 years and with fine which may extend to five lac rupees.
' Nevertheless minimum sentence has to be taken into consideration in order to determine whether the offence falls within prohibitory clause. The offence as such does not fall within prohibitory clause. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances referred to in case of "TARIQ BASHIR and 5 others v. The State" (PLD 1995 SC 34) withholding of post arrest bail is not intention of law. The petitioner is in judicial lock up for last ten months. Challan has not yet been submitted and it will take considerable time for its presentation as objections are still to be removed by the Investigating agency for which purpose we called officiating S.P. (Investigation) with direction to gear up the process. Further detention of the petitioner as such will not serve any useful purpose and that too for an indefinite period. The petitioner had no previous history and record.
5. Pursuant to above discussion we are inclined to accept the petition and as such while allowing the same petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bond in a sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.