MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs S.H.O., DISTRICT KHANEWAL and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 at Police Station Abdul Hakeem, District Khanewal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the facts and circumstances of the case, including the applicability of the prohibitory clause and the period already spent behind bars. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The court held that since the petitioner was behind bars for about six months, was a previous non-convict, and the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, keeping him incarcerated for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail should generally be granted in non-prohibitory offences where the accused has no previous criminal record and further detention would serve no purpose.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Does the period already spent in judicial custody justify the grant of bail when the accused is a previous non-convict?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when further detention would serve no useful purpose?
- Sections 3/4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
ORDER
The petitioner seeks his post arrest bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R No, 76 dated 17.04.2011 under Sections 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd), Order IV of 1979, at Police Station Abdul Hakeem District Khanewal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case is false and that the petitioner has no previous record and the offences do not fail under the prohibitory clause.
3. On the other hand, the learned A.P.G opposed the petition.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The record shows that the petitioner was arrested on 17.04.2011 and was sent to judicial lock up on the same day and thus is no more required by the police and he is behind the bars for about six months. The petitioner is previously non-convict. The offences do not fall under the prohibitory clause, so no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner Muhammad Ramzan is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.