IMRAN MASIH vs STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner Imran Masih, who was implicated in FIR No. 35 dated 17.12.2009 registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 at Police Station Airport Rawalpindi, following the alleged recovery of sixty bottles of liquor. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the offence and the evidentiary material collected during investigation. The Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for bail, noting that the offence under Section 4 is bailable, there was prima facie no evidence regarding Section 3 at this stage, samples were taken from only two of the recovered bottles, the petitioner was a first-time offender, and his continued detention served no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds, laying down the principle that where an offence is bailable and the evidentiary nexus for non-bailable charges requires further inquiry, bail should be granted.
- Whether an offence under Section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 is bailable?
- Does the recovery of a large quantity of liquor warrant the denial of bail when the applicability of Section 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 requires further inquiry?
- Is a first-time offender entitled to bail when his further detention is not required for the investigation?
- Section 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Section 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Allegation against the petitioner leveled in the case FIR No, 35 dated 17.1.2.2009 under Section 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 Police Station Airport Rawalpindi is that on 7.1.2009 at about 10.50 p.m. in the area of Suzuki Stand Gharibabad within the jurisdiction of Police Station Airport Rawalpindi on the spy information I.O. apprehended accused petitioner when he was having two Toras in his possession. Each Tora contains 30 bottles of liquor. Investigating Officer obtained small quantity of contents in bottle for determination of its nature only from two bottles each from one Tora. and after investigation he was sent to judicial lock-up.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no evidence of Section 3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and that Section 4 of the said Ordinance is bail able. He further contended that specimen for determination of nature of contents in the bottles was obtained only from two bottles out of 60 bottles. Lastly contended that offence under which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
3. Learned D.P.G vehemently contested the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that heavy quantity of liquor was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and presumably that huge quantity with the petitioner was for the purpose of transportation and sale and thus he is fully connected with the commission of offence not only under Section 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 but also u/S. 3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd)
Order, 1979.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused. No doubt allegedly 60 bottles of liquor was recovered from the possession of the petitioner but specimen for determination of nature of contents was obtained out of two bottles. More over there is no evidence with regard to the offence u/S. 3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order. 1979 and offence under Section 4 of the said Ordinance is bail able. Petitioner is previously non-convict and his detention behind the bar was no more required for any useful purpose for the decision of the case, therefore, petitioner is admitted to bail in the subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum Rs, 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.