Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Fazal-e-Miran ChauhanShaukat Riaz,Shaukat Riaz
2006 Y L R 1672
2006 Y L R 1672
[Lahore]
Before Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J
MUHAMMAD IQBAL---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Cr. M. No.204-B of 2006, decided on 23rd February, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 498---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4---Pre arrest bail, confirmation of---Article 3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, did not attract prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. , whereas Art. 4 of the Ordinance, was bailable---Investigating Officer had violated provisions of S.103, Cr. P. C. ---Since raiding party consisted of so many police officials, it did not appeal to reason that accused succeeded in escaping from the clutches of raiding party at relevant time---No useful purpose would be served to send accused behind the bars as no recovery was to be effected from him---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances.
Syed Jaffar Bukhari with Petitioner in person.
Shaukat Riaz for the State.
Date of hearing: 23rd February, 2006.
JUDGMENT
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.---The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.9, registered with Police Station, Saddar, Kabirwala, District Khanewal on 7-1-2006 for an offence under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. As per F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that; he was distilling liquor at the time of raid and he made good his escape by climbing the wall of his house.
3. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. Article 3 of the said Order, does not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., whereas Article 4 is bailable. The Investigating Officer has violated the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner carries weight. The raiding party was consisted of so many police officials and it does not appeal to the man of prudent mind that applicant succeeded in escaping from the clutches of the raiding party on the relevant time. No useful purpose would be served to send the petitioner behind the bars as no recovery is to be effected from him. In this view of the matter, the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T. /M-206/L Bail granted.