NAZIM HUSSAIN Versus State
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, relating to the alleged distillation of liquor and recovery of twenty litres of liquor from their Dera. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail considering the non-association of independent witnesses during the raid and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, noting that the complainant violated Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 by failing to associate respectables from the locality, the offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the petitioners had no previous criminal record. The court laid down that violation of mandatory search provisions regarding independent witnesses and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause constitute valid grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether the non-association of respectable inhabitants of the locality during a raid under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 justifies the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does an offense under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Is the absence of previous criminal history a relevant factor for granting post-arrest bail in liquor recovery cases?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioners have sought their post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 383 registered at Police Station Uch Sharif on 9-11-2003 for an offence under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. The relevant facts, per F.I.R. are that the complainant Abdul Rauf, A.S.-I. after receipt of secret information raided the Dera of the petitioners and apprehended them while they were distilling liquor. Twenty litres of liquor was also taken into possession. Similarly, articles used for manufacturing of the liquor were also taken into possession.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the record of the case. It has been noticed that the complainant has violated the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. with impunity by not associating any respectable from the locality during the raid; the offences do not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; no record is available against the petitioners that they were previously involved in any criminal case. Thus, I admit the petitioners to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
H.B.T./N-136/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- FARYAD ANJUM MASIH vs THE STATE 2006 P Cr. L J 1884