THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Applications No. 1478 and 1556 of 2017

Present Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto

Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi

Date of Hearing: 07.11.2017

Date of announcement of Order: 14.11.2017

Applicants/accused: Mohammad Nadeem Siddiqui through Mr. Nazir Ahmed Advocate in Cr.B.A.No.1556/17.

Mohammad Adnan through Mr. Shoukat Ali Shehroz Advocate in Cr.B.A.No. 1478/2017

Respondent: The State through Mr. Ashfaq Rafiq Janjua Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan

O R D E R

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.- Mohammad Nadeem Siddiqui and Mohammad Adnan applicants/accused seek post arrest bail in FIR No. 26/2017 registered at Police Station FIA Anti-Corruption Circle, Karachi on 09.08.2017 under Sections 23 & 27 read with Section 30 of Drugs Act, 1976. Previously, applicants/accused applied for post arrest bail before Drugs Court Sindh at Karachi but bail application of accused Mohammad Nadeem Siddiqui was dismissed on 22.09.2017 and bail application of accused Mohammad Adnan was dismissed on n 15.09.2017. By this single order, we intend to decide Bail Applications moved in above referred crime.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Zakir Hussain Samoo Provincial Inspector of Drugs, Karachi received information that one Mohammad Nadeem Siddiqui is involved in sale/supply/distribution of suspected, spurious, counterfeit, substandard, unwarranted and unregistered steroid injections namely Testoterone Enanthate 250 mg and tablets Danabol DS in the local market as well as in other cities of Pakistan unauthorizedly and illegally for body building by youngsters having harmful for human body. On receipt of such information, with the approval of the competent authority, a raid was conducted FIA Team in the supervision of AD Khalid Jamil FIA ACC along with complainant Zakir Hussain Samo near Hilal-e-Ahmar Hospital/ Dil Pasand Sweet Clifton, Karachi and apprehended a person, who on enquiry disclosed his name as Mohammad Nadeem Siddiqui. He was carrying a carton which was searched it contained steroids injections/ampoules of Testoterone Enanthate 250 mg total 50 packets manufactured in Iran and 50 bottles tablets of Danabol DS manufactured in Thailand which he came to deliver at the near Body Building Club. Each packet of injection containing 10 Pcs cost around Rs.1500/- and bottle containing 500 tablets each cost around Rs.4500/-. Accused failed to produce any lawful authority. The said injections and tables were sealed in presence of mashirs and mashirnama of arrest and recovery was made at spot. Thereafter, accused and case property were brought at Police Station FIA Anti-Corruption Circle, Karachi, where FIR No.26/2017 for offences under Sections 23 & 27 read with Section 30 of Drugs Act 1976 was registered against the accused on behalf of state.

3. Learned Advocates for applicants/accused argued that name of accused Mohammad Adnan did not transpire in the FIR and his name was disclosed by co-accused Mohammad Nadeem Siddiqui during interrogation before the police. It is further argued that investigation has not been completed within 3 months and accused are no more required for investigation. Lastly, it is argued that no private person was associated as mashir of recovery. Both the learned counsel relied upon the case of Alam Zeb and another vs. The State and others (PLD 2014 SC 760).

4. Mr. Ashfaq Rafiq Janjua learned Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan argued that unregistered drugs were recovered from accused, serious offences have been committed by accused. He has opposed the bail applications. He has relied upon unreported case of Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Siddique vs. The State (Criminal Petition No.493/2016) dated 18.05.2016.

5. In our considered view, no case for grant of bail is made out to the applicants/accused for the reasons according to prosecution case, consequent upon the receipt of the complaint from Provincial Drug Inspector Karachi-II, regarding sales and distribution of suspected spurious/ unregistered injections and as per information, applicant/accused Mohammad Nadeem Siddiqui was involved in such offences, Raid was conducted and accused Nadeem was apprehended and alleged stock of drugs was recovered from his possession and aforesaid FIR was registered against him. Accused Nadeem was brought to Police Station and during interrogation he revealed that he used to purchase medicine from one Mohammad Adnan, hence on his pointation another raid was conducted and accused Mohammad Adnan was apprehended. During interrogation Mohammad Adnan admitted that unregistered medicines were available at his house. Accused Mohammad Adnan led the FIA and on his pointation, following medicines were recovered from his Flat No.203, Jillani Plaza, Karachi.

S.No.	NAME OF DRUG	QUANTITY	MADE IN
01.	Viagra 100 mg	16 packets	USA
02.	Centrum Silver	05 bottles	USA
03.	Centrum Adults	03 Packets	USA
04.	Atro vent	15 packets	Istanbul
05.	Amaryl Tab 04 mg	07 packets	Istanbul
06.	Amaryl Tab 2 mg	24 packets	Istanbul
07.	Viagra 50	04 packets	USA
08.	Sterile water for injunction	30 AMPU	India
09.	Seven Seas Cord lever oil	12 Jars	U.K
10.	Cultrate 600 D3	03 bottles	USA
11.	Neurobeion Ampoules	05 packet/3	UK
12.	Amaryl 3mg Tab	04 packets	Istanbul
13.	Eltroxin Tab 100 mg	08 Jar	Thailand
14.	Marven Tab 5 mg	04 Jar	GSK
15.	Exelon 105 mg Cap	02 packets	Novartis
16.	Eipralex 10 mg Tab	14 Packets	Istanbul
17.	Fio Samax 70 mg Tab	03 packets	Istanbul
18.	Tresivac 05 mix 10 vial	03 packets	Istanbul
19.	Cyto tec	02 packets	S.A
20.	Cobra 150 Tab	70 Strip/5	India
21.	Pengra 100 mg Tab	80 Strip/5	India
22.	Voltran Supozituvar	03 packets/10	Novartis
23.	Cipralex 20 mg Tab	03 packets/28	India
24.	Relief Extra Tab	20 packets	India
25.	Amaryl 4mg Tab	15 ship	Sanofi
26.	Epanutin Cap	100 Cap	Istanbul
27.	Furolin Tab 100 mg	02 packets	IASIS Pharma

6. P.W Mohammad Arif Noorani in his 161 Cr.P.C statement fully implicated applicant/accused Mohammad Adnan while stating that he used to purchase local medicines from Mohammad Adnan and Mohammad Adnan is dealing with imported/unregistered medicines and selling in the local market. He has further stated that FIA Team and Provincial Drug Inspector visited house of Mohammad Adnan and Mohammad Adnan voluntarily produced unregistered medicines.

7. Provincial Government Analyst/Director Drug Testing Laboratory Sindh Karachi vide Certificate dated 27.09.2017 has recorded remarks as under:-

“The sample lable does not bear Pak Mfg. Lic.No.& Pak.Reg.No. Hence, the sample is Unregistered as defined in Drugs Act 1976.”

8. Prima- facie unregistered drugs were recovered by the FIA Team. Chemical Examiner’s report is positive. There is sufficient material to connect the applicants/accused with the alleged offence with regard to the unregistered drugs. Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the unreported case of Muhammad Siddique vs. The State (Criminal Petition No.493/2016) passed on 18.05.2016, refused bail in the case of unregistered Drugs mainly for the following rounds:-

“3. We have heard Mr. Abid S. Zuberi, learned ASC for the petitioner and have also gone through the record. On consideration of the submissions of the learned ASC for the petitioner so also the available record, prima facie, the recovery of drug “exciter” from the premises of the petitioner is not disputed. The petitioner’s stand as canvassed by his counsel before us was that the petitioner has purchased the drug “exciter” from its manufacturer considering it to be a herbal medicine and not an allopathic medicine and thus its non-registration does not amount to an offence under the Act. We are not at all persuaded by the contention of the learned counsel for the reason that the petitioner has been purchasing this medicine from the manufacturer since January 2009, the month in which the agreement with the manufacturer was made, and it cannot be expected that during all this period the petitioner did not come to know about the composition of the drug. In clause 2 of the very agreement, both the petitioner as a “Marketer” and the “Manufacturer” have made mutual covenants in which certain part of the material of drug was required to be supplied by the petitioner to the manufacturer. Further the raw material has to be as per the approved agreed specifications indicated in the formulation for manufacturing of “exciter” capsules as specified in appendix B to the agreement. Thus the very raw material and specifications of “exciter” capsules were prima facie in the full knowledge of the petitioner. Learned counsel has referred to the show-cause notice dated 19.10.2015 issued by the Federal Inspector of Drugs, Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan, Karachi and its reply dated 19.10.2015 by the petitioner. In the very show-cause notice it is mentioned that “exciter” capsule is an unregistered drug. In response the petitioner in his letter has not denied this aspect of the matter nor taken the ground that the said drug is a herbal product. Memo of seizure and Form-3 show that huge quantity of drugs was recovered. The submission of the learned counsel that on coming to know of the fact that the ”exciter” drug contravenes the provisions of the Act, the petitioner has offered to return whole of the stock to the manufacturer is of no assistance in that the petitioner has already been found in possession of illegal drugs. The last submission of the learned counsel that M/s CSM Pakistan is an NGO which was working for welfare of the people. We are altogether unable to understand how an NGO can enter into a business agreement as Marketer of drug and that too prima facie being unregistered drug. Therefore, we are of the view that the Trial Court as well as the High Court has given weighty and justifiable reasons for declining the bail to the petitioner and we also find no reason to disagree with the conclusion drawn by the Courts below. Therefore, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.”

9. For the above stated reasons, prima-facie, there are reasonable grounds to believe that applicants/accused have committed alleged offences. Therefore, bail applications are without merit and the same are dismissed. However, trial Court is directed to decide the case within two months under intimation to this Court.

10. Needless to mention here that observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and the trial Court shall not be influenced by the same at the time of deciding the case of the accused on merits.

JUDGE

JUDGE

..