2012 PLP 1154 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.

Through this petition, Nazir Ahmed Shahid petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.95, dated 17-2-2012, registered at Police Station B-Division, Kasur, in respect of offences under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that case against the petitioner is totally fake and petitioner has falsely been roped in this case by the police on the account of ulterior motive just to show their efficiency; that except the statement of the co-accused of the petitioner that petitioner was selling the liquor, there is no evidence whatsoever available on the record to connect the petitioner with the recovered liquor or the quarter from where the alleged liquor was recovered; that the raid proceedings are in violation of Article 22 of the Prohibition Order; that no independent witness of the locality was got associated in the search process; that the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P.C. Further contends that petitioner has no previous criminal record.

3. Conversely, learned Law Officer vehemently opposing this bail petition contends that petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R; that during the investigation, petitioner has confessed that the railway quarter, from where the alleged recovery of liquor has been effected, is owned by him; that version of the prosecution is fully supported by the statements of the P.Ws. recorded under section 161, Cr. P.C; that pre-arrest bail is an extra-ordinary relief and deeper appreciation of the merits of the case at this stage is not proper; that prior condition of pre-arrest bail is to prove mala fide on the part of the complainant or of the police that is even not alleged in this petition; therefore, he is not entitled for the concession of bail.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. Amjad Farooq A.S.I./Investigating Officer present in person after consulting the record confirms that petitioner has no previous criminal record.

6. Prima facie, there is no evidence available on the record against the petitioner except the statement of his co-accused namely Nadeem, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Admittedly, petitioner had not been apprehended by the police at the spot and there is no evidence that petitioner in any manner is connected with the Railway Quarter, from where alleged recovery of liquor has been effected. There is no evidence regarding the offence under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 whereas Article 4 of the Order supra is bailable. Petitioner has no previous criminal record.

7. For the foregoing reasons, false implication of the petitioner in this case by the police with mala fide intention cannot be ruled out, hence, this petition is allowed and ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 9-3-2012, is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Area Magistrate within a period of fifteen days from today.

8. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition. M.W.A./N-11/L Pre-arrest bail confirmed.