Fayyaz Hussain vs State etc
The petitioner, Fayyaz Hussain, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 258 registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance IV of 1979 at Police Station Saddar Mailsi, District Vehari, following the alleged recovery of 320 liters of liquor. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the statutory provisions involved. The Lahore High Court held that the offences alleged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, that the petitioner was not a previous convict, that no further custodial investigation was required, and that the petitioner had been incarcerated since the date of recovery. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail should generally be granted as a matter of right when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, the accused is not a previous convict, and further physical custody is not required for investigation purposes.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if their further physical custody is not required for investigation purposes and they are not a previous convict?
- Does the recovery of 320 liters of liquor under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979 necessarily bar the grant of bail?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Fayyaz Hussain, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 258 dated 05.08.2021 registered for offence under Article 3 & 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance IV of 1979 at Police Station Saddar Mailsi District V ehari.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on spy information, a raid was conducted, the petitioner was apprehended and 320 liter liquor was recovered.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. During physical custody of the petitioner with the investigation agency , no information regarding owner of Rickshaw Trolley or the person who brought the petitioner to the place of recove ry along with recovered plastic cans could be surfaced. Even no information regarding the distillation of the liquor by the petitioner or someone else could be obtained. Be that as it may, none of the two offences alleged against the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The petitioner is not a previously convicted person. He is behind the bars since the day of recovery while his custody is not required for any further investigation purpose hence, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to her furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.