MANZOOR AHMAD alias LODHI vs THE STATE
This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Manzoor Ahmad alias Lodhi, who was charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following an alleged recovery of local liquor. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and the lack of forensic evidence, despite the State's argument regarding the petitioner's criminal antecedents. The Court held that because the maximum sentence for the alleged offence is two years, the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, as the Chemical Examiner's report was pending, the case required further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt. The Court established the principle that when an element of judicial propriety—such as refusing bail based on an accused's criminal history—conflicts with an accused's right to bail in a case requiring further inquiry, the right to bail must prevail. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail.
- Does an offence carrying a maximum sentence of two years fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be refused solely on the ground of an accused's criminal antecedents when the case otherwise calls for further inquiry?
- Does the right to bail prevail over considerations of judicial propriety regarding an accused's past criminal record?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' Through this petition Manzoor Ahmad alias Lodhi petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 95 registered at Police Station, Changa Manga, District Kasur on 23-3-2000 for offences under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that so far the possession is not possessed of any evidence regarding manufacture, production or sale of local liquor allegedly recovered from the custody of the petitioner. An offence regarding possession of such substance carries a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment which does not attract there prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
The learned counsel for the State has informed that the report of the Chemical Examiner regarding the substance allegedly recovered from the petitioner has not so far been received. An incomplete challah has already been prepared after completion of investigation. There is nothing available with the prosecution so far so as to positively prove that the substance recovered from the petitioner was in fact locally produced liquor. In this view of the matter the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. It has vehemently been argued by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner is also involved in a number of cases of similar nature and, therefore, because of his antecedents he is not entitled to any indulgence by this Court in the matter of bail. I have, however, remained unable to subscribe to this submission of the learned counsel for the State. It is settled law that in a case where guilt of an accused person calls for further inquiry bail is granted to such an accused person as a matter of right. Refusal of bail to an accused person on the ground of his antecedents essentially pertains to an element of propriety. It goes without saying that whenever an element of propriety is confronted with a question of right then the latter must prevail.
4. For what has been discussed above this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.