RAUF AHMED vs STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Rauf Ahmad seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 10 registered on 22.01.2008 at Police Station Shah Gharib, District Narowal, under Section 11-A/1 of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, accused of selling agricultural pesticides without a license, is entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged offence only carries a sentence of fine and the case falls within the scope of further inquiry. The court held that since the provision provides only a sentence of fine, the co-accused holding the valid license is the petitioner's brother, and the petitioner's continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose, the case calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court laid down the principle that where an offence primarily entails a fine and the ownership of the business and active participation require evaluation at trial, further inquiry is warranted, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the alleged offence provides only a sentence of fine?
- Does a case call for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the primary punishment is a fine and the applicability of the penal provision to the accused is doubtful?
- Is a person entitled to bail when the co-accused possesses the requisite business license and the petitioner's presence at the shop does not conclusively establish an offence at the bail stage?
- Section 11-A/1, Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance 1971
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition Rauf Ahmad petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 10 registered at Police Station Shah Gharib, District Narowal on 22.01.2008 for an offence under Section 11-A/1 of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971, amended in 1997. The allegation leveled against the petitioner in the FIR is that when on 22.01.2008 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 lock-up since 03.04.2008 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 sub-section (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.