MURSLEEN alias KAKA vs STATE
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner, Mursleen alias Kaka, seeking post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 371, registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, at Police Station Burewala, District Vehari. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was apprehended on the spot while manufacturing indigenous liquor. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court observed that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant law and that the report of the Chemical Examiner regarding the recovered material remained awaited. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer confirmed the petitioner had no prior criminal involvement and was no longer required for investigation purposes. Emphasizing that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment, the Court held that continued detention served no useful purpose. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Does the absence of a Chemical Examiner's report regarding recovered material constitute a ground for granting bail?
- Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment for an accused?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
ORDER
Through this criminal miscellaneous petition Mursleen alias Kaka has sought post arrest bail in case FIR No, 371 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 indigenes liqour. 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 settled 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 us. 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.