GHULAM MURTAZA Versus THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 at Police Station New Multan, Multan. The core legal question pertained to whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where no recovery was effected from his person, the case rested on the testimony of police witnesses who were subordinates of the complainant, and the complainant himself conducted the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the investigation conducted by the complainant himself rendered the process doubtful, and since the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the petitioner was entitled to bail. The court laid down the principle that an investigation conducted by the complainant himself in a criminal case is improper and undermines the fairness of the proceedings, and that bail should be granted when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause and no recovery is made from the accused.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when no recovery is effected from the person of the accused?
- Does an investigation conducted by the complainant himself vitiate the fairness of the proceedings for the purpose of bail?
- Whether an offense not punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more falls 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 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner seeks his post‑arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No‑126 of 2001, dated (sic)‑3‑2001 under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, registered at Police Station New Multan, Multan.
2. The instant case was registered on the statement of Muhammad Akram, A.S.‑I., who received a secret information that ‑the petitioner was selling liquor in shoppers. Thereafter, the complainant conducted a raid alongwith secret informer and his fellow police officials. Allegedly the petitioner, who was selling liquor in shoppers ran away after seeing the police party. According to the complainant, he collected all the shoppers, which were 15 in numbers.
3. Muhammad Farooq, A.S.‑I./Investigating Officer present in Court, states that he arrested the petitioner on a secret information on 7‑5‑2001. However, no recovery was effected from the person of the petitioner after his arrest.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been conceded by the Investigating Officer as well as the learned State Counsel that nothing was recovered from the petitioner after his arrest. Similarly the allegation against the petitioner is that he threw the bags/shoppers containing liquor and ran away. It is very strange that the petitioner, who was empty‑handed made good his escape from the police party containing Muhammad Akram, A.S.‑I., and four constables alongwith one secret informer. All the witnesses are police constables, who are the subordinates of the complainant. It has been further conceded by the Police Officer that Muhammad Akram, A.S.‑I./complainant himself completed the investigation of the case. I am afraid, if it is allowed, the investigation would result into mockery. I am fortified in my view by relying on the case' reported as Ashiq alias Kaloo v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 601 decided by the
Federal Shariat Court.
5. In any case, the perusal of the F.I.R. shows that no customer has been mentioned/apprehended in the present case. None of the offences mentioned in the F.I.R is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is not a previous convict.
6. For what has been discussed above, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs. ten thousand, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H. B. T./G‑106/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.