MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus THE STATE
The petitioner filed a petition for post-arrest bail after being charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 39 bottles of liquor. The petitioner had been in custody since October 16, 2000, and his initial bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khanpur. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the alleged offense fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, thereby disentitling the petitioner to bail. The Court held that even assuming the offense fell under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, the maximum punishment prescribed is five years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, establishing the principle that offenses carrying a maximum sentence of five years generally do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
- Does an offense punishable by up to five years imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the alleged offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Section 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
- Section 156, Land Customs Act, 1969
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
The petitioner seeks post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 383 of 2000 dated 16‑10‑2000 under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with section 9 of C.N.S.A., 1997 and section 156 of Land Customs Act, 1969 registered at Police Station City Khanpur, for possessing 39 bottles of liquor.
2. The petitioner applied for bail which relief has been declined to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanpur vide order, dated 21‑12‑2000. Hence the instant petition.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. The petitioner stands charged under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with section 9 of C.N.S.A., 1997. He was arrested on 16‑10‑2000 and since then is in jail. Even if it is assumed that the offence falls under Article 3 (ibid) the same is punishable up to five years, as such offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly the petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑1506/L Bail granted.