FIAZ AHMAD vs STATE and another
This criminal matter arose from a petition filed by Fiaz Ahmad seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 at Police Station Kot Sultan, District Layyah. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was apprehended on a motorcycle carrying 76 koppies of liquor, totaling 38 liters, while two co-accused fled. The petitioner contended that the contraband was held by co-accused who had either been declared innocent or admitted to bail, that he had no prior criminal record, and that the alleged offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court observed that the recovered quantity amounted to 38 liters and that the alleged offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause. Additionally taking into account that the petitioner had no previous criminal record, the High Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing requisite bail bonds.
- Whether the recovery of 38 liters of liquor under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 falls within the prohibitory clause?
- Whether an accused with no prior criminal record is entitled to post-arrest bail where the alleged offense under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
ORDER
Fiaz Ahmad-petitioner seeks his post arrest bail in case FIR No, 147/08 dated 20.4.2008 registered under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979 at Police Station Kot Sultan District Layyah.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.4.2008 the petitioner was caught hold with the possession of 76 Koppies containing liquor. His co-accused were succeeded to run away. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was riding a motorcycle and the other co-accused were sitting on the said motorcycle holding Koppies of liquor with them into two different bags.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one co-accused has been declared innocent while the other Abdul Majeed has been granted bail by the learned Magistrate Section-30 on 28.5.2008. Since the petitioner has been shown arrested at the spot therefore, his bail was declined by both the Courts below. Further submitted that as per contents of FIR the alleged liquor was not in the possession of the petitioner but the same was in possession of other co-accused, out of whom, one has been declared innocent and the other has been released on bail. Lastly it is argued that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause and there is no allegation of selling of such articles.
4. Learned counsel for the state submits that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR and he was caught hold at the spot and the whole liquor was recovered from him.
5. After hearing the arguments from both sides and perusing the record, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR and 76 Koppies of liquor were recovered from him. On my query, each Koppy contain half liter of liquor which means that 38 liters liquor has been shown to be recovered from the petitioner which offence does not fall within. the prohibitory clause.
Admittedly the petitioner is not a previous record holder.
6. In view of the above, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with two surties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.