KHALID YOUSIF vs STATE
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 18/04, registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, at Police Station Haram Gate, Multan. The petitioner sought confirmation of pre-arrest bail, contending false implication, the inapplicability of Article 3, the bailable nature of Article 4, lack of recovery, and absence from the scene of the occurrence. The State opposed the application, citing the petitioner's presence in the FIR and the alleged recovery of alcohol. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that Article 3 was prima facie inapplicable and Article 4 is bailable. Furthermore, the Court found the petitioner's claim of malafide and false implication credible, noting that it was implausible for the petitioner to have escaped from a seven-member raiding party. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail previously granted. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the applicability of non-bailable provisions is doubtful and the prosecution's narrative regarding the circumstances of arrest appears improbable, the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail may be confirmed.
- Is Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 applicable when the prosecution fails to establish the necessary elements for the charge?
- Does the implausibility of the prosecution's narrative regarding the arrest provide grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Is an offense under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 bailable?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
ORDER
Through this petition, the petitioner has sought for the relief of his pre-arrest bail in a case FIR No. 18/04 dated 1.2.2004 registered under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition Order IV of 1979 at Police Station Haram Gate, Multan.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case; that Article 3 of the aforesaid Order Prima facie is not applicable against the petitioner whereas Article 4 is bailable one; that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner; that the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time; that the petitioner is first offender and not a previous convict.
3. On the contrary the learned State counsel opposed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner is named in the FIR; that the recovery of alcohol has been effected from the petitioner, therefore he is not entitled for ektraordinary concession of bail.
4. Heard both the parties Record perused.
5. Admittedly Article 3 of the aforesaid Order prima facie is not applicable against the petitioner whereas Article 4 is bailable one. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been implicated in this case due to malafide of the complainant and is first offender, seems to be correct for the reason being that the raiding party was consisted of as many as seven persons and it does not appeal to a man of prudent mind that the petitioner succeeded in escaping from the clutches of raiding party at the relevant time.
6. In view of the above discussion and without going into the merits of the case the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 19.5.2004 by this Court is hereby confirmed.