KHALID YOUSIF vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the applicability of the charged provisions and the circumstances of the alleged recovery. The Lahore High Court held that Article 3 of the Order was prima facie inapplicable and Article 4 was bailable, and further noted that it was implausible for the petitioner to have escaped from a raiding party consisting of seven persons. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where a prohibitory clause of an offense is prima facie inapplicable and the circumstances of the arrest cast doubt on the prosecution's version regarding escape and recovery, pre-arrest bail may be confirmed.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the primary penal article is prima facie inapplicable?
- Does the implausibility of escape from a large raiding party constitute grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Whether bail should be confirmed when an offense falls under a bailable provision of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
- 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 ofhis pre-arrest bail in a case F.I.R.
No.18 of 2004 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 F.I.R.; that the recovery of alcohol has been effected from the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for extraordinary 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 mnla fide 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.
Pre-arrest .