2013 PLP 1612 (YLR)
TALUKA RAAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2013 PLP 1612 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Altaf Ibrhaim Qureshi, J |
| Parties | TALUKA RAAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1612 (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 2013 PLP 1612 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Altaf Ibrhaim Qureshi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1612 (YLR) (TALUKA RAAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Asif Bukhari for Petitioner.
- Khalid Pervez Opal, Deputy Prosecutor General and Muhammad Iqbal A.S.-I. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 5, 3 & 4
Ad interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Legal possession of liquor
Probability of false implication
Effect
Police on basis of prior information laid a check point to arrest the accused, however on seeing the police accused allegedly managed to escape, leaving behind his motorcycle, which contained 80 bottles of liquor
Accused, who was a non-Muslim, had a valid permit and authorization to keep 54 units of liquor in his possession
Articles 3 and 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement Of Hadd) Order, 1979, were not attracted to the present case in such circumstances
F.I.R. did not mention as to how much liquor was present in the 80 bottles, which were allegedly left behind by the accused
Given the fact that police party had prior information and had laid a check point to arrest the accused, question was as to how accused managed to escape in the presence of police-officials, who were armed with weapons
Record did not show that motorcycle allegedly left behind by accused belonged to him, meaning that accused was not known to the police, therefore, question was as to how police came to know that the person who managed to escape was the accused
False implication of accused could not be ruled out in such circumstances
Complainant was a police official but despite such fact F.I.R. was lodged after an inordinate delay of about 24 hours, which itself created doubt
Involvement of accused in the case was doubtful and facts available on record spoke of the mala fide on part of the police
Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ALTAF IBRAHIM QURESHI, J.--Through the instant petition filed under section 498, Cr.P.C., petitioner Taluka Raam son of Tara Raam, caste Bhail, resident of Chak No.85/A, Tehsil Liaqatpur, District Rahim Yar Khan seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.718 of 2011 dated 12-8-2011 registered under Articles 3 and 4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 at Police Station Liaqatpur, District Rahim Yar Khan.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on spy information that Taloka Ram son of Tara Ram is coming having illicit liquor in his possession, police party consist of Muhammad Alqbal A.S.-I., Muhammad Ali 1195/C, Ghulam Mustafa 784/C, Ghulam Yaseen 765/C made 'Naka-Bandi' and on seeing the police party, petitioner Taloka Ram managed to escape after leaving behind a Motorcycle and 80 small bottles of liquor. Hence this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has no concern with the instant case and has been falsely implicated in this case just to show police efficiency; that nothing is to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner and his person is no more required by the police for further investigation; that the petitioner is legally authorized to keep 48 units of liquor in his possession; that handing over the petitioner to police would not serve any useful purpose; that the complainant of the case illegally trespassed into the house of the present petitioner on which he filed an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. and for the revenge of that application, petitioner has been involved in this case; That there is no independent witness. There is violation of section 103, Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner is previously non-convict/ non-record-holder; that the petitioner is permit-holder for keeping 6 units liquor per month and is also authorized to keep 48 units of liquor, hence Articles 3 and 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 are not attracted in this case.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General vehemently opposed the bail petition and prayed for its dismissal.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. According to the authorization certificate issued by Excise and Taxation Officer, Rahimyarkhan dated 10-8-2011 petitioner is authorized to purchase and carry 48 units of liquor on behalf of Bhori Mai, Sorjan Ram, Lachmi, Dhauro Ram, Parbhu, Lala Anwar Lai, Dally Mai and Mema Mai, which is valid till 31-8-2011 and according to Permit No.58/2011-2012 dated 10-8-2011, valid till 30-6-2012 petitioner is also authorized to keep six units of liquor. It means that the petitioner was legally authorized to keep 54 units of liquor in his possession whereas according to the story of the F.I.R., petitioner was not arrested at the spot and fled away while leaving behind a Motorcycle and 80 small bottles of liquor whereas it is not mentioned in the F.I.R. that how much liquor was in the bottles which itself makes the case of prosecution doubtful and in the presence of valid permit and authority letter to keep in possession 54 units liquor in his possession, Articles 3 and 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 are not attracted in this case. For further clearance Article 5 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 is reproduced as under:-- "Article 3 or Article 4 not to apply to certain acts:- Nothing contained in Article 3 or 4 shall apply to any act done under, and in accordance with, the provision of this Order, or the terms of any rule, notification, order or licence issued thereunder," Moreover, the astonishing fact of this case is that when police party has already received spy information that present petitioner is coming having in possession of liquor and Naka-Bandi was made before his coming then how the petitioner managed to escape in the presence of one police officer accompanied by three police officials and all of them were with their respective weapons and petitioner was not armed with any weapon. Moreover, nothing is on record that the alleged Motorcycle left by the petitioner, belongs to him then how the police party who was not known to the petitioner, came to know that the person who fled away after seeing the police party was the present petitioner, hence false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. Nothing is yet to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Another astounding aspect of this case as per contents of the F.I.R. is that the occurrence took place on 11-8-2011 at 11-45 p.m. and the complainant is a police official while the F.I.R. was lodged on 12-8-2011 at 12-45 p.m. after an inordinate delay of about 24 hours which itself creates doubt that why the police officer remained mum for such a period and not get lodged the F.I.R. All these facts make the involvement of the present petitioner in this case doubtful, and speaks mala fide on the part of the police.
7. Hence, the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 13-9-2011 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. MWA/F-30/L Bail confirmed.