SHAUKAT KHAN vs THE STATE
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from a case registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 at Police Station Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner managed to escape during a police raid where 4,100 bottles of liquor were recovered from a vehicle allegedly owned by him. The core legal questions centered on whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the ownership of the vehicle had not been established during investigation and the Chemical Examiner's report was absent. The Lahore High Court held that despite the lapse of over three months, the investigating agency failed to verify the petitioner's ownership of the vehicle or obtain a Chemical Examiner's report to confirm the recovered substance was liquor. The Court ruled that the absence of the Chemical Examiner's report and ownership confirmation rendered the matter a case for further inquiry, while the possibility of mala fide registration could not be ruled out. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail.
- Does the failure to obtain a Chemical Examiner's report in a liquor recovery case make the matter one of further inquiry for bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed where the prosecution fails to establish the accused's ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged crime?
- Whether pre-arrest bail is warrantable when the possibility of mala fide registration of the FIR cannot be ruled out?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
ORDER
' SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.---The petitioner, Shaukat Khan, seeks pre-arrest bail in case being bearing F.I.R. No,898/2007, dated 1-11-2007 under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd)
Order IV of 1979, registered at Police Station Ferozewala District Sheikhupura, at the instance of complainant, Ali Javed, S.-I.
2. AS per F.I.R. The complainant upon receiving a spy information on 1-1-2007 stopped vehicle No, LZB-1650. The driver namely Syed Yasif Raza and one Raja Munir, residents of Rawalpindi, were caught/arrested but the petitioner namely Shaukat Khan managed to escape by taking advantage of rush on the road side and on checking of the vehicle 4100 bottles of liquor were recovered from the loader.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he is the owner of vehicle No, LZB-1650, from where the alleged liquor was recovered; that the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause; that the report from the Chemical Examiner has not yet been obtained and that the petitioner is Government contractor and in order to deprive him to obtain contract, this case has been malafidely got registered at the instance of some interesting parties.
4. Learned Addl. Prosecutor General, while opposing this petition, submitted that huge quantity of liquor has been recovered.
5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he being the owner of vehicle No, LZB-1650 was transporting the huge quantity of liquor, however, despite lapse of over three months, the investigating agency has not been able to verify the ownership of the above said vehicle. Even the report from the Chemical Examiner has not yet been obtained so far, in the absence of which it cannot be said that the substance which was recovered, is liquor or not?, Thus a case of further inquiry has been made out. The possibility, that the case has been registered against the petitioner malafidely , at this stage cannot be ruled out.
6. For what has been disused above, while accepting this petition, ad interim pre-arrest, bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 10-12-2007 is confirmed on the same surety.