MUHAMMAD WASEEM alias BUBBLE vs THE STATE
This case relates to an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and implicated in a case registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, upon the allegation of being caught red-handed in possession of liquor bottles. The core questions before the Lahore High Court were whether non-compliance with the statutory search requirements and the non-receipt of the Chemical Examiner's report entitled the accused to post-arrest bail, and whether the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court admitted the petitioner to bail, observing that the complainant had violated Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 with impunity, the report of the Chemical Examiner had not yet been received, and the alleged offence did not prima facie attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the guilt or innocence of the accused was to be determined by the trial court after recording evidence.
- Does the non-association of private witnesses in violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrant the grant of post-arrest bail in a recovery case?
- Whether the non-receipt of the Chemical Examiner's report serves as a ground for granting bail to an accused charged under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Does an alleged offence under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.---The petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,160, registered with Police Station Haram Gate, Multan on 30-12-2005 for an offence under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. Succinctly, as per F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that he was caught red-handed while he was in possession of 21 small bottles and 19 large size bottles of liquor.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been involved in the instant case; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last three months and no private witness has been associated in the recovery proceedings.
4. Conversely, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed this bail application.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It has been noticed that the complainant has violated the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. With impunity; prima facie, the offence with which the petitioner has been involved does not attract the provisions of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; the report of the Chemical Examiner is yet to be received.
The guilt or otherwise of the petitioner would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. In the circumstances, the petitioner is admitted; to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.