Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM SHABBIR AHMAD VS Respondent: STATE
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 1388
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Ghulam Sarwar, J
GHULAM SHABBIR AHMAD---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3249/B of 1993, decided on 12th September, 1993,
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979) Art.3/4---Bail, grant of---Despite incriminating recoveries allegedly having been effected from the accused, the offence with which he was charged did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. was still to be determined during trial as to whether the devices recovered were sufficient to manufacture alcohol---Case against accused, thus, needed further inquiry---Accused was allowed bail accordingly.
Malik Asif Majeed Awan for Petitioner.
Rafi Siddiqui for the State.
ORDER
Being an accused in case F.I.R. No.157, dated 24-5-1993 registered at Police Station Kunjah under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, Ghulam Shabbir had moved this Court under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. for his release on bail in the case, the same having been refused to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat on 22-6-1993.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a police party at the information of Mukhbar Khas allegedly raided the place of the petitioner and arrested him while he was preparing liquor.
The complainant, A.S.I. also alleged that he recovered the apparatus of liquor distillation and also 1-1/2 bottles of distilled liquor and a "Mutka" (pitcher) of Lahn.
3. It was submitted that it was a clear case of violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. because no independent witness was associated to attest the recoveries. It was also added that the petitioner is in the jail since 24-5-1993 and the case against him does not fall under the prohibitory clause as contained in section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State could not vehemently oppose the bail plea of the petitioner.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have given my earnest thought to the contentions raised by him. I find that although there is an allegation that, 1-1/2 bottles of alcohol and some devices of manufacturing the same were recovered from the petitioner when he was apprehended from an open place near his house but the fact remains that the offence with which he is charged is punishable with five years' imprisonment only which does not fall under the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Moreover, it is still to be determined during trial as to whether devices recovered were sufficient to manufacture the alcohol. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the opinion that the case against the petitioner falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., so he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Gujrat.
N.H.Q./G-207/L Bail granted.