NOOR AHMAD alias NOORI vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 58 registered at Police Station Zahir Pir for offences under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following an alleged recovery of liquor and distilling equipment from his premises. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the raid. The Lahore High Court held that the absence of a search warrant, the failure to associate any public witnesses with the raid, and the lack of recovery of any raw material undermined the prosecution's story regarding the distillation of liquor. Consequently, the court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner, subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that procedural lapses during a police raid, such as lack of search warrants and absence of public witnesses coupled with missing foundational evidence like raw material, provide sufficient grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail in narcotics and prohibition cases.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when a police raid is conducted without obtaining a search warrant?
- Does the failure to associate public witnesses during a recovery proceedings affect the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
- Is the absence of raw material during an alleged distillation raid sufficient to doubt the prosecution's story and warrant bail?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
ORDER
' The petitioner has sought his pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,58 registered at Police Station Zahir Pir on 27-2-2003 for offences under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. According to the F.I.R., Kalim Akhtar, A.S.-I. On a secret information raided the premises of the petitioner who according to the allegation was distilling liquor. During raid the complainant took into possession distilling instrument as well as five litres of liquor.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. It has been noticed that no search warrant was obtained by the complainant A.S.-I.; that none from the public was associated during the proceedings; that no raw material was taken into possession which roots out the story on distilling of liquor. In the circumstances I confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 17-4-2003 subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs,10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court within two weeks.