IQBAL MASIH vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Iqbal Masih, who was arrested in connection with FIR No. 283 dated 7.9.2017, registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979 at Police Station Saddar Multan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the nature of the alleged offence. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that the alleged recovery of liquor was from joint possession, the prosecution had failed to collect evidence regarding ownership of the place of occurrence, and the Chemical Examiner's report was still pending. Furthermore, the Court observed that the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the conclusion of the trial is not in sight, continued incarceration of a first-time offender is not justified.
- Does an offence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the absence of a Chemical Examiner's report a relevant factor in determining the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Should bail be granted when the alleged recovery is from joint possession and the trial is not likely to conclude soon?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Iqbal Masih, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 283 dated 7.9.2017, offence under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979 registered at Police Station Saddar Multan District Multan.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on spy information, a raid was conducted, petitioner along with his co-accused Muhammad Fiaz was arrested and about 900 liters liquor along with apparatus was taken into possession.
3. Heard. Perused.
4. Even per prosecution's case, the liquor was recovered from the joint possession of the petitioner and his co-accused Muhammad Fiaz. No evidence qua the possession over the place of occurrence and its ownership has been collected by the investigation agency so far. The prosecution is not equipped with the report of Chemical Examiner till today. None of the offences alleged against the petitioner falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of. Criminal Procedure, 1898. The petitioner is having no previous criminal record and he is behind the bars since his arrest on 7.9.2017 while conclusion of trial is not in sight. In the circumstances mentioned supra, keeping him incarcerated till indefinite period does not look justified.
For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.