' The petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No, 400, dated 23-8-2000, registered against him at Police Station Satellite Town, Sargodha for having committed an offence punishable under sections 23/27 read with section 30(2) of Drugs Act, 1976.
2. A cursory study of the F.I.R. Reveals that the complainant alongwith Deputy District Health Officer, Sargodha visited premises of M/s. Kazmi Dawakhana situate near Bus Stand Sargodha and carried out joint inspection. During the course of inspection, they collected samples of some cough syrups for analysis purposes, which was despatched to the Government Analyst for his examination and report. After due examination of the samples, it was opined that the said samples contained allopathic ingredients i,e, Daizepam and Phenobarbitone, which was commonly used for intoxication.
3. After being arrested, the petitioner preferred his post-arrest bail application before Drug Court, which was dismissed on 7-9-2000. Hence this application before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the abovesaid ingredients are used as tranquilizers and not for intoxication purposes. He next argued that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about two months and sentence provided for the said offence does not exceed three years in any case. He further submits that case of the petitioner is not covered by the prohibitory field of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the recovered drugs are used for intoxication purposes and so the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail.
6. I have considered arguments of both the sides. Admittedly, the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is not punishable with ten years or more and so it does not fall within the prohibitory field of section 497, Cr.P.C. He has been behind the bars for a sufficient long time and his further detention is not likely to serve any useful purpose to the prosecution. Vial has not commenced as yet. It is likely to consume a prety long time. Accused persons cannot be kept interminably in jail on the whim or caprice of the prosecution. There is no likelihood of petitioner's jumping the bail in any manner.
7. Accordingly, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.