RAUF AHMAD vs THE STATE
This petition has been filed by Rauf Ahmad seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 10 registered on 22-1-2008 at Police Station Shah Gharib, District Narowal, for an offence under section 11-A/1 of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where the alleged offence provides only for a sentence of fine, and the necessity of keeping the accused behind bars during trial. The Lahore High Court held that since the relevant provision only provides a sentence of fine, the petitioner's further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, and his case calls for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that where an offence carries only a sentence of fine and the accused's continued detention is unnecessary for investigation, bail ought to be granted as the case falls within the scope of further inquiry.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the alleged offence under the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971 provides only for a sentence of fine?
- Does keeping an accused behind bars serve any useful purpose when the investigation is complete and the offence carries only pecuniary punishment?
- When does a case fall within the purview of further inquiry into guilt under subsection (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 11-A/1, Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance 1971
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHARY, J.---Through this petition Rauf Ahmad petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,10 registered at Police Station Shah Gharib, District Narowal on 22-1-2008 for an offence under section 11-A/1 of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971, amended in 1997. The allegation levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. Is that when on 22-1-2008 the Inspector, Pesticides, Shakargarh raided at Zahid Agri Services, Qasimpura the petitioner was found selling agricultural pesticides without license with his co-accused namely Abdul Ghafoor.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence alleged against the petitioner only provides fine of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) and the petitioner is in judicial lockup since 3-4-2008 and his person is no more required by the police for the purpose of investigation.
3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General appearing for the State has half heartedly opposed this petition for post-arrest bail because he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record especially the relevant provision provided in section 11-A/1 of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971, amended in 1997. I have noticed that the learned counsel for the petitioner is quite right in submitting that the said section only provides a sentence of fine. A co-accused of the petitioner who was declared innocent by the police because he was duly possessed the requisite license with him, has already been allowed pre-arrest bail by the learned trial Court. I may observe here for the limited purpose that to run a shop of pesticides only one license is required and that is available with the prosecution which is in the name of co-accused of the petitioner who is also his brother. Mere sitting in a shop with his brother does not constitute any offence against the petitioner. Moreover the question whether the shop belongs to the petitioner or his co-accused and also the question whether the petitioner was selling pesticides or not are questions which will be seen by the learned trial Court at the time of trial after assessing and evaluating the evidence on record. At this stage to keep the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose.
5. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond 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.