ABDUL REHMAN alias PILLU Versus THE STATE
The petitioner, Abdul Rehman alias Pillu, sought post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 157/2003, registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, at Police Station Mochiwala, Jhang. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was apprehended while preparing liquor, with 15 litres of liquor recovered from the scene. The petitioner's initial bail application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang. Upon review, the High Court noted that the petitioner had no prior criminal record and that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant law. Furthermore, although the challan had been submitted, the trial had not progressed significantly. The Court held that keeping the petitioner incarcerated for an indefinite period served no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the trial has not progressed?
- Does the absence of a previous criminal history weigh in favour of granting post-arrest bail?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
ORDER
Petitioner Abdul Rehman alias Pillu son of Ahmad Khan seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.157/2003, dated 22-5-2003 under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 registered at P. S. Mochiwala, Jhang with the allegation that the petitioner alongwith Ashiq Shah co-accused were busy in preparing liquor. A raid was conducted and co-accused Ashiq Shah who was owner of the house fled away from the spot and the petitioner was apprehended and 15 litres liquor was taken into possession.
2. The petitioner was declined after arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang vide order, dated 14-6-2003. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State have been heard exhaustively and record has been perused.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner has no previous criminal history and the alleged offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause. The challan of the case has already been submitted but there is no material progress in the trial. No useful purpose can be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount of the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./A-177/L Bail granted.