2006 P Cr (PLP)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.115 of 2006, dated 7-2-2006, registered under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4, 1979 at Police Station Sadar Mandi Baha-ud-Din on the statement of Muhammad Ashraf, A.S.-I., the complainant.

2. The brief allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is that on 7-2-2006 at 9-45 p.m. when the complainant along with police officials was on patrolling duty near Joy Nagar Morr, Mandi Baha-ud-Din, a white coloured Car bearing Registration No.LXR-7072 came there from the side of Mandi Baha-ud-Din. On checking the said car, 18 bottles of liquor were recovered from its diggi, which were taken into possession and Faryad Anjum (petitioner) and driver Irshad Masih co-accused were apprehended at the spot.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, that Article 3 is not attracted in the present case as there was no evidence regarding sale of the said liquor, Article 4 is bailable and the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following judgments: Muhammad Akram v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 454; Nazim Hussain and others v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 602 and Bashir Ahmad and others v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 1754.

4. The learned State counsel has opposed this bail petition on the ground that recovery of huge quantity of liquor was effected from the petitioner and the co-accused, who were apprehended at the spot, therefore, this petition may be dismissed.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel 'for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.

6. During the investigation at the time of arrest, the petitioner made statement before the police that he used to deal in the sale and purchase of the liquor, whereas the driver denied the allegation and stated that he was only a taxi driver, which was taken by the petitioner on rent. The petitioner along with the co-accused was apprehended at the spot and recovery of 19 bottles of liquor itself shows that the same was kept for the purpose of sale. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that recovery of huge quantity of liquor is itself sufficient to prima facie attract the provisions of' Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 4 of 1979 as it cannot be expected that the same was kept only for personal use. The petitioner prima facie is involved in the case for heinous offence and the petitioner has failed to show any reason for his false implication in the present case on the part of the police officials. Moreover it is informed that the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. has been submitted in the Court and only few witnesses have been cited by the police in the calendar of witnesses, which shows that there is possibility of early conclusion of the trial. Though the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and grant of bail in such-like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception, yet it does not mean that the offence has become bailable. The discretion still rests with the Courts, which has to be exercised judiciously keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. The offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is in fact against the Society and there are chances of repetition of the offence, if the petitioner is released on bail, therefore, the case against the petitioner falls within the exception and I do not find any good ground for release him on bail at this stage relying upon the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner as each criminal case has to be decided on its facts and circumstances. In the above-said circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for the grant of bail, which is dismissed. H.B.T./F-37/L Bail refused.