IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Appln. No. S-28 of 2025

Applicant	Umed Khan and others
	Through Mr. Khadim Hussain Khoso, Advocate
The State	Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State
Date of hearing	29-01-2025
Date of order	07-02-2025

O R D E R

OMAR SIAL, J.- Umeed Khan, Rahim Khan, Nadir Ali, Khalid Ali, Imran, and Samiullah, all with the surname Brohi, seek post-arrest bail in Crime No. 211 of 2024 registered under section 8 of the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, and Use of Gutka and Manpuri Act, 2019 at the Ratodero police station. The applicants were apprehended on 07.12.2024 by a police party led by A.S.I Muhammad Alim Abro. Upon search of the truck in which they were apprehended, 193 bags of betel nuts were recovered. The men were arrested, and the FIR was registered on the same day.

2.       I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Prosecutor General. My observations and findings are as follows.

3.       Learned Additional Prosecutor General has informed me that applicant Umeed Khan was also booked in a case for having 240 grams of supari. Section 8(1) provides a potential sentence of one to three years and a fine of not less than Rs. 200,000 for first-time offenders. Whereas repeat offenders can be sentenced to five to ten years and a fine of Rs. 500,000. Although section 9 of the Act makes an offense under section 6 non-bailable, the punishment falls within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.

4.       The facts of the case reveal that the substance seized from the applicants was betel nuts. It will have to be determined at trial whether having betel nuts breaches any provision of the 2019 Act. The report submitted by the laboratory is silent regarding the quantity of the substance seized and sent for analysis. However, it concludes that the betel nuts are injurious to health within the meaning of section 5 of the Pure Ordinance, 1960. As observed above, it is yet to be determined at trial whether the Act of 2019 has been violated.

5.       As far as the applicants, except Umeed Khan, are concerned, I do not see any ground for declining their bail considering the principles laid down in Tariq Bashir & 5 others v. the State (PLD 1995 SC 34). The case of Umeed Khan is on a slightly different footing. This is the second time he has been accused of the offense. However, no conviction has been recorded yet for the first allegation. Taking a lenient view on Umeed Khan, the applicants are admitted to post-arrest bail subject to them (except Umeed Khan) providing a surety for Rs. 200,000/- each. As far as Umeed Khan is concerned, he shall provide a surety of Rs. 500,000/-. The customary P.R. Bonds shall also be obtained. Surety and PR Bonds shall be to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. 

          The bail application is allowed.

JUDGE