SAJJAD AHMAD alias Lakha vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Sajjad Ahmad alias Lakha, who was charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the alleged recovery of 52 liters of liquor and distillation equipment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the recovery and the alleged procedural lapses in the investigation. The Court held that the offence prima facie fell under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, rather than Article 3, and noted that the offence was bailable and did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court observed that the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding recovery proceedings were violated. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and procedural requirements for recovery are ignored, the case warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the recovery of liquor and distillation equipment necessarily attract Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
- Does the violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during recovery proceedings render the prosecution's case doubtful for the purpose of bail?
- Is an offence that does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally entitled to the concession of bail?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner Sajjad Ahmad alias Lakha, through instant petition, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 342/2011 dated 06.11.2011 under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 registered at Police Station Alpha District Multan.
2. Briefly the prosecution story,. as contained in the FIR, is that during investigation of case FIR No, 341/2011, dated 06.11.2011, Police Station Chah Sattar Wala, the petitioner after disclosure, got recovered the working distill, articles of distillation of liquor alongwith 52 liters out of which 10 Auns liquor was sent for chemical examination and the remaining was taken into possession through recovery memo., hence, this case.
3. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has committed no offence and the case against him is false and baseless; that the alleged recovery is fake and fictitious; that the offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C; that no private witness has been associated with the recovery proceedings; that the petitioner is in judicial lock up and no more required by police for further investigation, and that the petitioner is previously non-convict, hence, he is entitled to concession of post arrest bail.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed the bail petition and prayed for its dismissal.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Perusal of record reveals that allegedly 52 liters liquor alongwith articles of distillation of liquor have been taken into possession; Meaning thereby, the petitioner was only in possession of above said liquor, therefore, prima-facie the offence under Article 3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd)
Order, IV of 1979, does not attract and the offence, which made out against the petitioner is under Article 4 of Order ibid and the same is bailable and also does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. During the recovery proceedings provisions of-Section 103 Cr.P.C. have been violated, winch makes the prosecution story doubtful. The petitioner is first offender and previously non-convict. He is behind the bars and no more required by police for further investigation. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been sent to the Court of competent jurisdiction but trial of the case is not in sight and keeping the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose.
7. In view of the above, the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C, therefore, he is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.