SAEED MOAVIA and another vs STATE and another
This criminal petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail filed by two petitioners involved in FIR No. 341/2012, registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The petitioners were apprehended after 538 bottles of liquor were recovered from their vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the offenses charged. The petitioners argued that Section 4 of the Order is bailable and Section 3 carries a maximum imprisonment of five years, thereby excluding the case from the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that since Section 4 is bailable and Section 3 carries a five-year sentence, the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause, making the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception. Furthermore, the Court noted that the chemical analysis report was still pending and the challan had been submitted. Consequently, the Court accepted the bail petition, ruling that indefinite incarceration serves no useful legal purpose.
- Does an offense under Section 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception in cases where the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioners seek post arrest bail in criminal case FIR No, 341/2012, dated 26.06.2012, registered under Sections 3 and 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 at Police Station City Mianchannu, District Khanewal.
2. An over-speeding car being driven by the Petitioner No, 1 accompanied by Petitioner No, 2, Muhammad Rafiq, was intercepted, searched and 538 bottles containing liquor were recovered.
The petitioners were apprehended. The samples were sent for chemical analysis.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no history involving in any criminal case, previously; that Section 4 of the Order ibid is bailable while Section 3 is punishable with an imprisonment for five years only, thus, it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, grant of bail is opposed by the learned A.P.G. It is contended that a huge quantity of liquor has been recovered from possession of the petitioners and that they were apprehended at the spot.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APG and also gone through the record.
Section 4 of the Order ibid is bailable and Section 3 is punishable with in imprisonment for five years. In suchlike case, grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. The samples though sent yet the result of the chemical analyst is still awaited. The challan of the case has been submitted in the Court. Incarceration of the petitioners for an indefinite period would not service any useful purpose of law. This petition is accepted and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000/- with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of