RAEES AHMAD vs THE STATE
Raees Ahmad filed a petition seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 61 registered at Police Station New Multan for offences under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the alleged recovery of 750 liters of alcohol. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the statutory delay in concluding the trial and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the accused had been in jail for over a year and a quarter without conclusion of the trial, the case rested solely on police officials, the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and there was a violation of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding search and recovery. The court laid down the principle that undue delay in trial combined with the non-application of the prohibitory clause warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the trial has not concluded after a significant delay and the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the violation of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding recovery provide grounds for the grant of bail?
- Whether the continuous incarceration of an accused for over a year with the prosecution case resting solely on police officials justifies releasing the accused on bail?
- Articles 3/4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---Raees Ahmad seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,61 registered at P.S. New Multan on 31-3-2005 for offences under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. According to F.I.R. After receipt of secret information Muhammad Rizwan/S.-I. Formulated a raiding party; reached the spot and apprehended petitioner Raees Ahmad and Mushtaq accused.
750 liters of alcohol was recovered from the possession of both the accused.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant record of the case.
4. It has been noticed that the petitioner and his co-accused Mushtaq Masih are in jail since 31-3- 2005; that despite the fact that about 1-1/4 year has elapsed and the prosecution case rests on the statements of police officials only the learned trial Court has not concluded the trial as yet; that none of the offences attracts the mischief of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Furthermore, Muhammad Razwan/S.-I. Violated the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, I admit the petitioner as well as Mushtaq Masih on bail subject to their A furnishing bail bonds in the sum of rupees five thousand each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
5. Mushtaq Masih/accused would informed by Rajab Ali Shah, S.-I. Who is attendance, as well as by the Superintends Jail concerned.