MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Muhammad Iqbal, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 353 of 2005 registered under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 at Police Station Muzaffarabad, Multan, following the alleged recovery of 25 bottles of locally made liquor. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail because the recovery was made from a well-populated area without associating any witnesses from the locality, thereby violating the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and because the charged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that non-compliance with section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a populated area, coupled with the non-prohibitory nature of the offence, constitutes valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail.
- Whether non-association of witnesses from the locality during recovery violates section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the recovery of liquor from a well-populated area without public witnesses justify the grant of bail?
- 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
' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.--- Notice for today.
2. The latter accepts notice on behalf of the State. Let it be heard and decided today.
3. Muhammad Iqbal petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,353 of 2005, registered at Police Station Muzaffarabad, Multan on 14-11-2005 for an offence under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
4. The relevant facts per F.I.R. Are; that on a tip off the petitioner was apprehended by Mukhtar Hussain; S.-I. And 25 bottles of local made liquor were recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has been noticed that though the petitioner was apprehended in a well-populated area yet none from the locality was associated with the recovery proceedings and the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Were violated with impunity. The offences do not attract the prohibitory provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C. In the circumstances I am inclined to admit the petitioner 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. 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.