Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM MURTAZA VS Respondent: THE STATE
2001 PCr
2001 PCr.LJ 1919
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J
GHULAM MURTAZA‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1260/13 of 2001, decided on 19th June, 2001.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Nothing was recovered from the accused after his arrest‑‑‑Allegation that the accused who was selling liquor in shoppers had made good his escape from the police party consisting of six members after throwing the said shoppers could not be believed‑‑‑All the witnesses were police constables who were subordinates to the complainant and the complainant had himself completed the investigation‑‑‑No customer had been mentioned/apprehended in the case‑‑‑None of the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. was punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more and did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused was not a previous convict‑‑‑Bail was granted to the accused, in circumstances.
Ashiq alias Kaloo v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 601 rel.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 156‑‑‑Investigation‑‑‑Police Officer who was complainant had completed investigation of the case‑‑‑All witnesses were police constables, who were subordinates to complainant/Police Officer‑‑‑Investigation, in circumstances would result into mockery.
Ashiq alias Kaloos v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 601 rel.
Habib Ullah Shakir for Petitioner.
Raja Sultan Khuram for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner seeks his post‑arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No‑126 of 2001, dated (sic)‑3‑2001 under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, registered at Police Station New Multan, Multan.
2. The instant case was registered on the statement of Muhammad Akram, A.S.‑I., who received a secret information that ‑the petitioner was selling liquor in shoppers. Thereafter, the complainant conducted a raid alongwith secret informer and his fellow police officials. Allegedly the petitioner, who was selling liquor in shoppers ran away after seeing the police party. According to the complainant, he collected all the shoppers, which were 15 in numbers.
3. Muhammad Farooq, A.S.‑I./Investigating Officer present in Court, states that he arrested the petitioner on a secret information on 7‑5‑2001. However, no recovery was effected from the person of the petitioner after his arrest.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been conceded by the Investigating Officer as well as the learned State Counsel that nothing was recovered from the petitioner after his arrest. Similarly the allegation against the petitioner is that he threw the bags/shoppers containing liquor and ran away. It is very strange that the petitioner, who was empty‑handed made good his escape from the police party containing Muhammad Akram, A.S.‑I., and four constables alongwith one secret informer. All the witnesses are police constables, who are the subordinates of the complainant. It has been further conceded by the Police Officer that Muhammad Akram, A.S.‑I./complainant himself completed the investigation of the case. I am afraid, if it is allowed, the investigation would result into mockery. I am fortified in my view by relying on the case' reported as Ashiq alias Kaloo v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 601 decided by the Federal Shariat Court.
5. In any case, the perusal of the F.I.R. shows that no customer has been mentioned/apprehended in the present case. None of the offences mentioned in the F.I.R is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is not a previous convict.
6. For what has been discussed above, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs. ten thousand, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H. B. T./G‑106/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.