' S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.- Muhammad Azmat petitioner sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R.
No,896/08 dated 9-11-2008 for offences under Articles of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd)
Order, 1979 registered at Police Station Sadar Pakpattan Sharif, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. According to the F.I.R, the petitioner was already under investigation with the same police officer Maqbool S.-I. Of Police Station Sadar Pakpattan in case F.I.R. No,894/08 relating to recovery of liquor registered under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, when he made a disclosure that there was more liquor in his house; that he used to extract liquor domestically and that he could get the same recovered. Thereupon as per F.I.R, on his leading and pointation, one plastic jug, one empty bottle and one plastic cane with lahn, 40-liters were recovered from his residential room. On recovery 10 ounces were separated as sample for sending to the chemical examiner. Thereupon, the present F.I.R. No, 896/08 was registered at the instance of the complainant Maqbool Ahmad S.-I.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was violation of section 103 Cr.P.C., that recovery was fake and that the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause. It was claimed that the petitioner was entitled to bail.
4. Conversely, learned D.P.G, has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that heavy quantity of Liquor and other material relating thereto, having been recovered at the instance of the petitioner, the only purpose was to sell the same and that therefore the petitioner was not entitled to bail.
5. Where an accused under interrogation leads to discovery of a fact which is within his special knowledge, section 103, Cr.P.C, would have no relevance. In such a situation, the recovery got made by the accused would be admissible under Article 40 of Qanoon-i- Shahdat Order, 1984. Howeyer, I find that the petitioner was already under interrogation in case F.I.R. No,896/08 with the same complainant police officer i.e, Maqbool Ahmad S.-I. A second F.I.R, was invented seemingly to show police Karwai which would have its own ramifications. I am conscious that there may be no legal bar for a complainant police officer to investigate a cognizable offence. However, the fact remains that a complainant police officer would always be interested in putting up a report under section 173, Cr.P.C, against the accused. The purpose of investigation would, therefore, be failing where the complainant police officer wears a mantle of investigator also in the same case. Rule of prudence and fair-play would certainly demand that where a police officer of the same Police Station is the complainant, investigation ought to be made by another police officer preferably senior in rank.
Otherwise, it would invariably be mockery of law. In the present case, Maqbool Ahmad S.-I. Was the complainant and he himself happened to be the investigator. His three subordinate constables were the recovery witnesses. There is no indication in the police record if the police party had ever made a slightest attempt to call any other person to join the recovery proceedings. It is not the case of the prosecution that somebody was called but he avoided to join recovery proceedings on account of reprisal of the accused or for any other reason. In these circumstances, the investigation steps taken by the police required a double check, which is possible during trial. Trial is not yet in sight.
6. For all the above reasons, I admit the petitioner to bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.