2010 PLP 1337 (YLR)
TAHIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1337 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, J |
| Parties | TAHIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1337 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1337 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1337 (YLR) (TAHIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 2nd November, 2009.
- 3. The learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Fazalur Rehman Khan, submitted that the offence for which the accused has been charged is a heinous offence badly affecting the society at large. The recovery was made from the car of the accused which amounts to recovery from his immediate possession. So, in the circumstances, the accused petitioner is not entitled to any leniency.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4
Manufacturing, owning or possessing intoxicant
No doubt, a huge quantity of liquor had allegedly been recovered from accused, but the prosecution had failed to confirm it with its chemical analysis that the alleged recovery was in fact alcohol, possession and use of which was prohibited under the law
One could not presume the alleged recovery to be liquor which would make the case of accused as that of further inquiry entitling him to concession of bail
Refusal of grant of bail would amount to punishment before the trial which was against the settled principles
Accused was released on bail, in circumstances. Qaisar Zaman for the Petitioner. Fazalur Rehman Khan, A.-A.G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.
The present petitioner seeks his release on bail in case F.I.R. No.787 dated 25-9-2009 under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 registered at Police Station Hayatabad on the ground that huge quantity of liquor (local made alcohol) was recovered from his car and the petitioner was apprehended at the spot by the police. After refusal of concession of bail, the accused petitioner has moved the instant application.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that nothing incriminating was recovered from the immediate possession of the petitioner and from the date of alleged recovery, no F.S.L. report confirming the alleged recovery to be liquor has yet been made available by the prosecution. He was further of the view that there was no independent witness to the alleged recovery which makes the case of the accused petitioner as that of further inquiry and the punishment provided for the offence does not fail within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. thus, the accused petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Fazalur Rehman Khan, submitted that the offence for which the accused has been charged is a heinous offence badly affecting the society at large. The recovery was made from the car of the accused which amounts to recovery from his immediate possession. So, in the circumstances, the accused petitioner is not entitled to any leniency.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that no doubt, a huge quantity of liquor has allegedly been recovered from the accused petitioner but till date, the prosecution has failed to confirm it with its chemical analysis that the alleged recovery was in fact alcohol, possession and use of which is prohibited under the law and at this stage, one cannot presume the alleged recovery to be liquor which makes the case of the accused petitioner as that of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail. In the circumstances of the case, the refusal of grant of bail would amount to punishment before the trial which is against the principles laid down by the judicial system of the country.
5. Hence, for the reasons recorded above, this bail petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be released on bail if he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/ Magistrate on Duty. However, being tentative assessment as per record available today before this Court, this order may not prejudice the mind of the trial Court. H.B.T./87/P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.