MUHAMMAD AKRAM SHEHZAD and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Akram Shahzad and Muhammad Usman, who were booked under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 in F.I.R. No. 99 registered at Police Station City, Khanpur on 14-3-2005, following the alleged recovery of 300 Kuppis of liquor. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the recovery and statutory provisions. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners are entitled to bail, observing that the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 were violated, the alleged offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and no adverse previous criminal record was shown. The key principle laid down is that non-compliance with search witness requirements under section 103 Cr.P.C. and offenses falling outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C., absent a criminal history, furnish grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether violation of the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 during recovery justifies the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 entitle an accused to bail when no previous criminal record exists?
- Articles 3/4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J, --- After throught the going original record, I am inclined toproceed further against Dr. Mansoor Tariq.
2. Muhammad Akram Shahzad and Muhammad Usman have sought post-arrest bail in case. F.I.R.
No, 99 registered at Police Station City, Khanpur on 14-3-2005 for offences under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
3. As per F.I.R., on secret information, the petitioners were apprehended by Hafeez Ahmad, A.S.-I./ complainant. During search, 300 Kuppis (small containers) of liquor were recovered from the possession of the petitioners and the case was registered against them.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record of the case.
5. It has been noticed that the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Have been violated with impunity by the complainant/A.S.-I; that the offences do not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
And that no record is available against the petitioners that they A were not previously involved in any criminal case. In the circumstances, I am inclined to admit the petitioners to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of rupees fifty thousand each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.