MUHAMMAD LATIF vs STATE and another
The Petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 291/19 registered at Police Station Sinawan, District Muzzafargarh, for offences under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when the Chemical Examiner's report had not yet been received and the charged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause. The Lahore High Court held that the absence of the Chemical Examiner's report making the nature of the recovered substance subject to confirmation rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted that Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 is bailable and Article 3 does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and since the petitioner had joined the investigation, grant of bail was the rule. The Court laid down the principle that where recovery requires chemical confirmation and the offence falls outside the prohibitory clause, bail is granted as a rule and refusal is an exception.
- Is a case considered one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the Chemical Examiner's report has not been received?
- Whether bail should be granted as a rule when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Does Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 provide for bailable offences?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- 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. 291/19 dated 09-07-2019 which was registered at 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 receiv ed a secret information that the Petitioner was running a distillery and he could be arrested if raid was conducted. On this information the Complainant along with other police officials raided the said place and apprehended the .Petitioner . The police recovered illicit liquor and distillery articles from the said place.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Admittedly , the report of Chemical Examiner has not been received in this case so far which could confirm that the recovered liquid was actually liquor . It is, thus, a case of further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
5. Even otherwise, Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement 1 of Hadd) Order , 1979, is bailable while Article 3 of the Order ibid does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The Petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required by the police for further investigation. The august Supreme Court has held in the case reported as "Tariq Bashir and 5 others vs. The State" (PLD 1995 SC 34) that grant of bail in offences punishable, with imprisonment for less than 10 years is a rule and refusal is an exception. Following the said C judgment, this Court admitted an accused person to bail in identical circumstances in the case reported as "Abide Ali vs. The State"
(2007 PCr .LJ 61 1).
6. In view of the foregoing, the instant application is accepted and the Petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing Nail bond in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trials Court.