MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus State
The petitioner Muhammad Akram sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 109 dated 15-4-2003, registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 at Police Station Allah Abad, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur, on the allegation of extracting liquor. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the grant of post-arrest bail considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the non-recording of evidence and the offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court accepted the bail application and held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that he was in judicial custody since 16-4-2003, no evidence had been recorded yet, he was not a previous convict, co-accused were already on bail, and the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is behind bars for a considerable period without commencement of trial, is not a previous convict, co-accused are on bail, and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the case becomes fit for the grant of bail.
- Whether an accused found extracting liquor is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the lack of progress in recording evidence while the accused remains in judicial lock-up justify the grant of bail?
- Whether the fact that co-accused have already been granted bail is a relevant consideration for releasing another co-accused on bail?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner (Muhammad Akram son of Liaquat Ali) seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 109, dated 15‑4‑2003, offence under Arts.3, 4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, registered at Police Station Allah Abad, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur.
2. As per F.I.R., on 15‑4‑2003, petitioner and his co‑accused were found extracting liquor and petitioner was apprehended at the spot along with apparatus used for extracting liquor. Hence this bail application.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that petitioner was not arrested by the police at the time of raid rather he was arrested from his house. He contended that petitioner is not a previous convict; that he is in judicial lock‑up since 16‑4‑2003 but no evidence has been recorded so far; that co‑accused already on bail and that offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497. Cr.P.C., therefore, petitioner deserves concession of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the grounds that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and he was found extracting liquor.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above, the allegation against the petitioner is that he and his co‑accused, were found extracting liquor. He is in judicial lock‑up since 16‑4‑2003. M. Yousaf, S.‑I., who is present in Court, states that challan has been submitted in Court but no evidence has been recorded so far. The petitioner does not appear to be previous convict. His co‑accused are on bail. As such without going into merit of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner, therefore, application brought by him is accepted and he is allowed bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑768/L Bail granted.