MUREED ABBAS vs STATE etc.
The petitioner Mureed Abbas sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 438/2008 registered under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, alleging involvement in the manufacturing of liquor. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was not arrested at the spot, nothing was recovered directly from his possession, and he had been incarcerated for a significant period with completed investigations. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The court held that the petitioner's involvement required further inquiry to be determined at trial after recording evidence, noting that he was not apprehended at the scene and no recovery was made from him. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not arrested from the spot, no recovery is effected from his person, and investigation is complete, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is not arrested from the spot and no recovery is made from his person?
- Does an offence under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 warrant further inquiry when the accused's involvement is disputed?
- Is continuous incarceration justified when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for investigative purposes?
- Article 3/4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner Mureed Abbas son of Haq Nawaz seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 438/2008 dated 22.9.2008 offence under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was engaged in business of manufacturing of liquor and that upon report of informer a raid was conducted at the alleged place of the petitioner but he alongwith co-accused was successful in escaping whereafter the articles used in manufacturing/extracting liquor were taken into possession from the spot.
3. It is inter alia contended that nothing was recovered from the possession of or at the pointation of the petitioner. On this sole point, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry. Further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 18.11.2008 and is no more required for investigation purpose; that the offence does not far within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The accused is previously non-convict and prays for grant of post-arrest bail.
4. Conversely Deputy Prosecutor-General vehemently opposes the grant of bail by submitting that sufficient evidence has come on the record during the course of investigation; that the petitioner is connected with the commission of alleged offence. He on seeing the police party fled away from the place of occurrence. The articles were taken into custody by the police. Offence is of heinous nature.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is alleged to be engaged in business of manufacturing of liquor and allegedly 15 liter quantity was recovered from the spot. The case of the petitioner is that he was not engaged with this business and that registration of case is tainted with mala fide. Admittedly the petitioner was not arrested from the spot. Nothing has been recovered from him. He is behind the bars since 18.11.2008 and investigation is also complete. No useful purpose would be served if he is kept behind the bar. Question of involvement of the petitioner in the offence alleged against in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case can only be determined at the time of trial after recording of evidence. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
7. However, it is clarified that the observation made in this order are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court shall proceeded with the trial without being influenced by it.
8. The learned trial Court if feels that the petitioner is misusing the bail shall alio be entitled to cancel the same. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of.