RIAZ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
The petitioner Riaz Hussain sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 35 registered on 19-2-2002 at Police Station Muzaffarabad, Multan under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the raid and the applicability of the statutory provisions. The Lahore High Court held that since liquor was not being sold at the time of the raid, Article 3 of the Order was not attracted, and further, the raid was conducted without a search warrant in violation of Article 22 read with Article 16 of the said Order. The Court also noted that the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the petitioner had no previous criminal record. The Court laid down the principle that bail cannot be withheld as punishment and should not normally be refused in cases not punishable with ten years or more, thereby admitting the petitioner to bail.
- Whether Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 is attracted when liquor is not being sold at the time of the raid?
- Can a raid be conducted at a private house under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 without obtaining a search warrant?
- Is bail to be refused in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where the accused has no previous criminal history?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 16, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 22, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Riaz Hussain petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,35 registered at Police Station , Muzaffarabad, Multan on 19-2-2002 for an offence under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. According to the F.I.R. The complainant Rab. Nawaz, A.S.I. Received a secret information that liquor was being distilled at the house of the petitioner. Resultantly, the complainant conducted a raid and recovered liqour as well as articles for distillation of the same from the house of the petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parites and have also gone through the record of the case. Admittedly, at the time of raid the liqour was not being sold to any one, therefore, the provisions of Article 3 of the Order was not attracted in the circumstances of the case. According to Article 22 read with Article 16 of the said Order the complainant could not conduct the raid at the house of the petitioner without obtaining a search warrant but in this case no such search warrant was obtained. None of the offences attractes prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the petitioner has no previous history of his indulgence in such-like activities. Neither the bail can be withheld as punishment nor normally refused in cases which were not punishable with ten years or more. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Ameer v. The State (1973 PCr.LJ 205).
4. For what has been discussed above I admit the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Bial allowed.