MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus THE STA'T'E
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Akram, who was charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979, following an alleged incident where he was apprehended while allegedly distilling liquor at a residence not belonging to him. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the duration of his pre-trial incarceration and the nature of the alleged offences. The Court held that the petitioner should be admitted to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the petitioner had been in custody for over six months without the commencement of the trial, and the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the petitioner had a prior criminal record or was involved in similar offences. Furthermore, the Court observed that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that continued detention would amount to punishment before trial, which is legally impermissible.
- Does an offence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused be denied bail when the trial has not commenced after six months of incarceration?
- Is it permissible to retain an accused in custody as a measure of punishment prior to the conclusion of a trial?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Akram son of Imam Din seeks his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.806 of 2003, dated 26‑12‑2003 for offences under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979 registered at Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala.
2. The allegation against the petitioner as unfolded by the complainant Munir Yousaf, A.S.‑I. was that the latter along with certain police officials was present near the graveyard of Hashmi Colony when it was revealed that in the courtyard of the house of one Iftikhar Ahmad the said Iftikhar Amjad alias Hero and the present petitioner were distilling indigenous liquor through a still; that on seeing the police party Iftikhar Ahmad, Zulfiqar Ali, and Amjad alias Hero made good their escape whereas the petitioner was overpowered and from the spot a working still, one bottle of distilled liquor two gas cylinders, a can and a plastic pipe, etc. were taken into possession. Out of the bottle of liquor, 6 ounces were separated for chemical analysis. Accordingly the instant case was registered.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 26‑12‑2003 i.e. the day when the case was registered and is in custody ever since.
4. I have heard Mr. Imran Asmat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Walayat Umar, the learned counsel for the State and have gone through the record brought by Talib, A.S.‑I.
5. It has been noticed that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than six months but the trial has yet not commenced. The' Investigating Officer has not been able to point out that the petitioner is a previous record‑holder or involved in a case of similar nature. The place wherefrom the alleged recovery had been effected admittedly does not belong to the petitioner and the possibility that he had gone there as a visitor cannot be ruled out. Even otherwise the offences with which the petitioner is charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The trial has not yet commenced and the petitioner cannot be retained in custody as a measure of punishment.
6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post‑arrest bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./659/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- FARYAD ANJUM MASIH vs THE STATE 2006 P Cr. L J 1884