Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Syed Sakhi Hussain BokhariRana Muhammad Arshad Khan,Ms. Noreen Saleem
2005 Y L R 656
2005 Y L R 656
[Lahore]
Before Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari, J
MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Crl. Miscellaneous No.7147‑B of 2003, decided on 15th December, 2003.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑---
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4‑‑ Bail grant of‑‑‑Allegation against accused was that he and his co‑accused were found extracting liquor‑‑‑Accused was in judicial lock‑up since his arrest‑‑‑Police Officer present in Court, had stated that challan had been submitted in Court, but no evidence had been recorded‑‑‑Accused did not appear to be previous convict‑‑ Co‑accused were on bail‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan for Petitioner.
Ms. Noreen Saleem for the State.
Date of hearing: 15th December, 2003.
ORDER
Petitioner (Muhammad Akram son of Liaquat Ali) seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 109, dated 15‑4‑2003, offence under Arts.3, 4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, registered at Police Station Allah Abad, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur.
2. As per F.I.R., on 15‑4‑2003, petitioner and his co‑accused were found extracting liquor and petitioner was apprehended at the spot along with apparatus used for extracting liquor. Hence this bail application.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that petitioner was not arrested by the police at the time of raid rather he was arrested from his house. He contended that petitioner is not a previous convict; that he is in judicial lock‑up since 16‑4‑2003 but no evidence has been recorded so far; that co‑accused already on bail and that offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497. Cr.P.C., therefore, petitioner deserves concession of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the grounds that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and he was found extracting liquor.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above, the allegation against the petitioner is that he and his co‑accused, were found extracting liquor. He is in judicial lock‑up since 16‑4‑2003. M. Yousaf, S.‑I., who is present in Court, states that challan has been submitted in Court but no evidence has been recorded so far. The petitioner does not appear to be previous convict. His co‑accused are on bail. As such without going into merit of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner, therefore, application brought by him is accepted and he is allowed bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑768/L Bail granted.