FALAK SHER vs STATE
The petitioner Falak Sher sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 370 dated 21.10.2006 registered under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 at Police Station Burewala, District Vehari, for allegedly being apprehended on the spot while manufacturing indigenous liquor. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause and the Chemical Examiner's report was still awaited. The Lahore High Court held that since the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the Chemical Examiner's report was awaited, the petitioner had been in custody since 21.10.2006, was no longer required for investigation, and had no previous criminal record, he made out a case for bail. The court laid down the principle that bail should not be withheld as a punishment, particularly in cases outside the prohibitory clause where further detention serves no useful purpose, granting the petition subject to surety bonds.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Does the absence of a Chemical Examiner's report at the bail stage favor the grant of bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when further detention serves no useful purpose and investigation is complete?
- Articles 3/4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
ORDER
Through this criminal miscellaneous petition Falak Sher has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 370 dated 21.10.2006 under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 registered with Police Station Burewala District Vehari.
2. Briefly the prosecution story is that the petitioner in the company of his co-accused was found manufacturing indigences liquor. He was apprehended on the spot and distilled liquor and articles used during the process of manufacturing liquor were recovered from him.
3. In support of this petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that offences allegedly committed by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause; that up till now the report of Chemical Examiner regarding the recovered material is awaited. He adds that petitioner is behind the bars since 21.10.2006 and it is entitled law that bail cannot be withheld as a matter of punishment.
3. The learned DPG has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner was apprehended on the spot while manufacturing the liquor.
4. After hearing both the sides it has been observed that admittedly the report of Chemical Examiner regarding the material recovered from the possession of the petitioner, has not yet been received by the prosecution. It has been further observed that the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause. The Investigating Officer present in Court has candidly admitted that the petitioner was not previously involved in such like activities. The petitioner is behind the bars since 21.10.2006. He is no more required for the investigation. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him any further. Consequently by relying upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported as Tariq Bashir vs. The State (PLD 1995 S.C.
34) this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.