ABDUL RASHEED vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was arrested in connection with FIR No. 288/19 for offences under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the alleged recovery of 30 litres of illicit liquor and distillery equipment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the offence and the status of the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, primarily because the prosecution failed to produce a chemical examiner's report confirming the nature of the recovered liquid, thereby necessitating further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt. Furthermore, the Court observed that Article 4 is bailable and Article 3 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant law. Emphasizing that the investigation was complete and the petitioner was a first-time offender with no exceptional circumstances presented by the prosecution to warrant continued detention, the Court granted the bail application subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Is the offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 bailable?
- Does the absence of a chemical examiner's report regarding recovered liquid constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Should bail be granted when the investigation is complete and the accused is a previous non-convict?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
ORDER
Through this application the Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 288/19 dated 09-07-2019 which was registered of Police Station Sinawan, District Muzzafargarh, for an offence unde r Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition Enforcement of Hadd) Order , 1979.
2. According to the FIR, the police receive d a secret information that the Petitioner was selling illicit liquor in front of his house and he could be arrested if raid was conducted. The complainant constituted a raiding party and reached the spot. The Petitioner was apprehended and 30 litres desi-liquor was recov ered from his possession. The Petitioner also led the raiding party from where he got recovered distillery articles which was used in manufacturing illicit liquor .
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The prosecution has not procured the report from the chemical Examiner so far which could confirm that the recovered liquid was liquor . As such, it requires further inquiry to determine the Petitioner's guilt.
5. It is observed that Article 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order , 1979 is bailable while Article 3 does not fall within the prohibitory clause. In such offences the concession of bail is generally granted unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Petitioner is a previous non-convict. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has not brought on record any exceptional circumstances on which the bail could be refused.
6. The investigation of the case has been completed and the Petitioner is not required by the police for any further probe. No useful purpose would be served in keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period.
7. For the foregoing reasons, I am inclin ed to allow this application. The Petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundr ed thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.