2000 PLP 2042 (YLR)
LODHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 2042 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J |
| Parties | LODHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 2042 (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 2000 PLP 2042 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 2042 (YLR) (LODHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Arif for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3/4‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Prosecution so far was not possessed of any evidence regarding manufacture, production or sale of local liquor allegedly recovered from the custody of the accused‑‑‑Offence regarding possession of such substance carried a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment which did not attract the prohibitory clause contained in S.497(l), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Report of the Chemical Examiner regarding the substance recovered from the accused had not so far been received and no positive proof was available that the same was in fact locally produced liquor‑‑ Incomplete challan in the case had been prepared after completion of investigation‑‑ Case against accused, thus, called for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr. P. C. entitling him to grant of bail as a matter of right which had to prevail against the ground of his antecedents as the same essentially pertained to an element of propriety‑‑‑Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. Masood Sadiq Mirza for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition Manzoor Ahmad alias Lodhi petitioner has sought post -arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 95 registered at Police Station, Changa Manga, District Kasur on 23‑3‑2000 for offences under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that so far the possession is not possessed of any evidence regarding manufacture, production or sale of local liquor allegedly recovered from the custody of the petitioner. An offence regarding possession of such substance carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment which does not attract there prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the State has informed that the report or the Chemical Examiner regarding the substance allegedly recovered from the petitioner has not so far been received. An incomplete challan has already been prepared after completion of investigation. There is nothing available with the prosecution so far so as to positively prove that the substance recovered from the petitioner was in fact locally produced liquor. In this view of the matter the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. It has vehemently been argued by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner is also involved in a number of cases of similar nature and, therefore, because of his antecedents he is not entitled to any indulgence by this Court in the matter of bail. I have, however, remained unable to subscribe to this submission of the learned counsel for the State. It is settled law that in a case where guilt of an accused person calls for further inquiry bail is granted to such an accused person as a matter of right. Refusal of bail to an accused person on the ground of his antecedents essentially pertains to an element of propriety. It goes without saying that whenever an element of propriety is confronted with a question of right then the latter must prevail.
4. For what has been discussed above this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000; (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./M‑237/L Bail allowed.