JAHANGIR REHMAT Versus State

ORDER

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.--- The petitioner has been booked for the offence under Articles 3/4 of Enforcement of Hadd, 1979, vide FIR No.42/2018, dated 23.12.2018 registered at Police Station Singul, District Ghizer.

2. Post-arrest bail of the petitioner was refused by the learned trial Court vide order/judgment dated 28.02.2019 and being aggrieved from the above judgment/order the petitioner rushed to this Court for concession of post arrest bail.

3. The learned counsel stated that the judgment/order of the learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Per learned counsel the offences levelled in the FIR do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is first offender and no more required for the purpose of investigation. The petitioner was on duty at the time of raid and as such his case is one of the further inquiry. The learned counsel relied on 1986 PCr.LJ 2027, 2007 MLD 79, 2007 PCr.LJ 611, 2010 YLR 2024 and 2010 YLR 1337.

4. The learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioner are heinous and there is a prima facie case against the petitioner, who does not deserve the concession of bail. The learned Dy.A.G. relied on 2009 PCr.LJ 19.

5. The FIR and the judgment/orders of learned trial Court are not in consonance. In the FIR it is alleged that the petitioner/accused was arrested at the time of raid but the judgment/order of learned trial Court speaks otherwise. Para 6 of the impugned judgment is re-produced as under:-

6. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the record. The raid has been conducted at the house of the petitioner/accused by police team along with notables of the area. The said raiding party is of the opinion that the petitioner was surely involved in the business of manufacturing of prohibited substances and supplying it to the interested individuals in the village and beyond. The opinion of such a responsible raiding party cannot be overlooked. The involvement of a person in such an injurious activity to the society is to be curbed firmly. The plea of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was on duty when raid was conducted, does not exonerate him from criminal liability as the nature of the offence is spreading over time and place. It is not an offence which has to be completed in a single act like murder or stealing. It is an offence of manufacturing of liquor which does not need presence of offender all the time beside the manufacturing instru ments installed in his house. His release on bail at this stage would be encouraging him to re-indulge himself in similar activity.

6. It could safely be inferred from the above para that the petitioner/accused was not present at the time of raid, which negates the contents of FIR. A recovery effected in absence of the petitioner/ accused and its implication will be thrashed at the time of trial. The case of the petitioner is one of the further inquiry. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

7. Petition accepted.

MQ/19/GB Bail allowed.