ANF moves top court against Sanaullah’s bail

Says LHC decision is contrary to the law

ISLAMABAD: The Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) on Wednesday challenged the Lahore High Court’s decision to grant bail to PML-N leader Rana Sanaullah in a drugs possession case.

In a petition filed with the Supreme Court, the ANF pleaded that the bail granted to the PML-N leader on December 24 be revoked and he should be returned to the custody of the force as the LHC decision was contrary to the law.

The ANF detained the PML-N Punjab president in July last year for allegedly possessing a huge amount of drugs in his vehicle, a claim which Sanaullah had denied.

Sanaullah, who has served as the Punjab law minister during the previous PML-N government, was arrested from the Islamabad-Lahore motorway near Sukheki, while he was travelling from Faisalabad to Lahore.

The ANF claimed to have recovered 15 kilogrammes of heroin and other drugs from his possession in the operation conducted on a tip-off. At least five people, including the driver and the security guard, were also nabbed.

His arrest was widely condemned by PML-N and other opposition parties. Time and again, Sanaullah has criticised the government for his arrest and described it as “an act of cruelty”.

Sanaullah, through his petition, pleaded the court for grant of post-arrest bail, alleging that he was implicated in a fake case. He submitted that the FIR of the incident was registered under 9-C, 15 and 17 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act with a delay, which made it dubious.

An anti-narcotics special court had twice rejected bail petition filed by the PML-N leader earlier.

He was finally granted bail by the LHC after remaining in ANF custody for over six months.

In its detail judgment in Sanaullah’s bail plea, the LHC noted that political victimisation in the country was an open secret and this aspect could not be ignored in the case.

“Learned counsel of [petitioner] also argued that case was registered for the reasons that petitioner was a vocal member of [the] opposition party and was criticising the policies of the incumbent government and on that account, he was put behind the bars,” the nine-page judgment read.

“However, in the context of [the] petitioner being a vocal political leader of [the] opposition party, this aspect of the case could not be ignored as political victimisation in our country is an open secret.”

The LHC also held that the prosecution’s case was “doubtful”.

“Law is also well settled that seriousness of allegation is not a ground for refusal of bail if on merits it is found that prosecution’s case is doubtful as [a] benefit of [the] doubt always goes to the accused even at [the] bail stage. Incarceration of accused before conviction in cases of doubtful nature is never approved by the courts.”