TALUKA RAAM vs The STATE

ORDER

' ALTAF IBRAHIM QURESHI. J.--Through the instant petition filed under section 498, Cr.P.C., petitioner Taluka Raam son of Tara Raam, caste Bhail, resident of Chak No.85/A, Tehsil Liaqatpur, District Rahim Yar Khan seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.718 of 2011 dated 12-8-2011 registered under Articles 3 and 4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 at Police Station Liaqatpur, District Rahim Yar Khan.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on spy information that Taloka Ram son of Tara Ram is coming having illicit liquor in his possession, police: party consist of Muhammad Alqbal A.S;-1., Muhammad Ali 1195/C, Ghulam Mustafa 784/C, Ghulam Yaseen 765/C made 'NakaBandi' and on seeing the police party, petitioner Taloka Ram managed to escape after leaving behind a Motorcycle and 80 small bottles of liquor. Hence this case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has no concern with the instant case and has been falsely implicated in this case just to show police efficiency; that nothing is to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner and his person is no more required by the police for further investigation; that the petitioner is legally authorized to keep 48 units of liquor in his possession; that handing over the petitioner to police would not serve any useful purpose; that the complainant of the case illegally trespassed into the house of the present petitioner on which he filed an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. And for the revenge of that application. Petitioner has been involved in this case; That there is no independent witness. There is violation of section 103, Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner is previously non-convict/ non-record-holder; that the petitioner is permit-holder for keeping 6 units liquor per month and is also authorized to keep 48 units of liquor, hence Articles 3 and 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 are not attracted in this case.

4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General vehemently opposed the bail petition and prayed for its dismissal.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. According to the authorization certificate issued by Excise and Taxation Officer, Rahimyarkhan dated 10-8-2011 petitioner is authorized to purchase and carry 48 units of liquor on behalf of Bhori Mai, Sorjan Ram, Lachmi, Dhauro Ram, Parbhu, Lala Anwar Lai, Daily Mai and Mema Mai, which is valid till 31-8-2011 and according to Permit No.58/2011-2012 dated 10-8-2011, valid till 30-6-2012 petitioner is also authorized to keep six units of liquor. It means that the petitioner was legally authorized to keep 54 units of liquor in his possession whereas according to the story of the F.I.R., petitioner was not arrested at the spot and fled away while leaving behind a Motorcycle and 80 small bottles of liquor whereas it is not mentioned in the F.I.R. That how much liquor was in the bottles which itself makes the case of prosecution doubtful and in the presence of valid permit and authority letter to keep in possession 54 units liquor in his possession, Articles 3 and 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 are not attracted in this case. For further clearance Article 5 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 is reproduced as under:-- "Article 3 or Article 4 not to apply to certain acts:- Nothing contained in Article 3 or 4 shall apply to any act done under, and in accordance with, the provision of this Order, or the terms of any rule, notification, order or licence issued thereunder,"

' Moreover, the astonishing fact of this case is that when police party has already received spy information that present petitioner is coming having in possession of liquor and Naka-Bandi was made before his coming then how the petitioner managed to escape in the presence of one police officer accompanied by three police officials and all of them were with their respective weapons and petitioner was not armed with any weapon. Moreover, nothing is on record that the alleged Motorcycle left by the petitioner, belongs to him then how the police party who was not known to the petitioner, came to know that the person who fled away after seeing the police party was the present petitioner, hence false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. Nothing is yet to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Another astounding aspect of this case as per contents of the F.I.R. Is that the occurrence took place on 11-8-2011 at 11-45 p.m. And the complainant is a police official while the F.I.R. Was lodged on 12-8-2011 at 12-45 p.m. After an inordinate delay of about 24 hours which itself creates doubt that why the police officer remained mum for such a period and not get lodged the F.I.R. All these facts make the involvement of the present petitioner in this case doubtful, and speaks mala fide on the part of the police.

7. Hence, the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 13-9-2011 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.