' SAGHEER AHMAD QADRI, J.---Petitioner Sheikh Ansar Ahmad son of Sheikh Muhammad Ilyas has moved this petition for grant of post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 40 dated 10-10-2011 registered under sections 9(c)/14/15/16 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, Prohibition as per Schedule V Controlled Chemical Table-I of UN Convention, 1988 at Police Station Anti-Narcotic Force, District Rawalpindi.
2. F.I.R. Was registered on the complaint sent by Riaz Ali, Assistant Director, Police Station ANF, Rawalpindi alleging therein that under the direction by the Secretary, Ministry of Narcotic vide letter dated 19-9-2011 whereby it was recorded that on 3-2-2011 in 28th Session of National Assembly of Pakistan on a "call attention notice", the Federal Minister for Health asstired the House for initiation of action against two companies who got issued unlawful licences for exporting Ephedrine from Pakistan but later on that material was sold within Pakistan. It was further directed that registration of those companies be cancelled and action be initiated against them. It was further recorded that Messrs Berlex Lab International, Multan got issued Ephedrine. On 25-3-2010 and 22-10-2010 in quantity of 6000 Kg and 500 Kg respectively for exporting the satne outside the country; that M/s. Danas Pharmaceutical (Pvt.) Ltd. Islamabad also got issued Ephedrine on 15-4-2010 and 9-6-2010 in quantity of 1500 Kg and 1000 Kg respectively for the same purposes, while due to some undue influence by some influential persons later on they without any lawful justification got changed the allocation and converted the same to be used and sold within Pakistan and these acts were committed by the above said companies with the active connivance of the then Director General (Health) and other officials of Ministry of Health, Government of Pakistan, who while misusing their authorities got allotted quota of Ephedrine in a huge quantity. On this report instant case as mentioned above was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that allegations against the petitioner are false, he has not committed any offence; that petitioner being the Drug Controller, Health Department, only during issuance of licences for provision of quota of Ephedrine to different companies remained associated with the files and he made certain observations; that he never allotted quota to any of the companies which subsequently misused or misappropriated the same; that the petitioner was arrested on 11-5-2012 and since then he is in judicial lock up; that provisions of section 9 of CNS, Act 1997, against the petitioner in the circumstances are not applicable as he was never granted nor secured in possession Ephedrine/control substances and at the best if at all any offence can be allegedly attracted against the petitioner, it can fall within the ambit of section 16 of the Act ibid which offence is maximum punishable up to one year imprisonment or fine of Rs,5,000 or both hence, a bailable offence; that the learned trial Judge has since been transferred and his substitute so far has not been appointed therefore, there is no likelihood, of conclusion of trial in near future. Prayed that petitioner be allowed post arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Special Prosecutor for ANF opposed these arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner was instrumental in issuance of Ephedrine quota in huge quantity beyond the prescribed limits to different companies hence, due to his active connivance, instant offence, as alleged, was committed which is maximum punishable up to death penalty therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly the petitioner was one of the officials who remained involved in noting drafting during the applications moved by different companies for issuance of licences of provision of Ephedrine quota for the manufacturing of different drugs. The petitioner was arrested on 11-5-2012 and is detained in lock up since then. At the best if at all, whatever allegations levelled against the petitioner are seen, in the light of present investigation and record, the petitioner allegedly misused his authority for issuance of quota to different companies hence, he violated the relevant rules.
Violation of provisions of sections 6, 7 and 8 of CNS, Act 1997 punishable under section 9 of the Act ibid only can be seen after recording the evidence at trial stage. At present the petitioner can be saddled only for the penalty provided under section 16 of the Act ibid which is maximum punishable up to one year imprisonment or fine of Rs,5,000 or both hence, a bailable offence. Case of the petitioner in these circumstances, requires further probe falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
Therefore, without touching the other merits he is admitted to post arrest bail and is directed to be released subject to furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five hundred thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court or learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi.