' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.--- Petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,664 of 2007 dated 20-12-2007 registered under sections 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 at Police Station City Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner as per narration of F.I.R. Is that he was caught red- handed by the police while selling the liquor.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that offences under which the petitioner is liable to be tried are sections 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and section 3 is not attracted in this case at all for the reason that there is no evidence regarding manufacturing or selling the said liquor which has been recovered from the present petitioner as no Watak money has been recovered from him. Meaning thereby that the petitioner was not selling the liquor and there is no evidence on record which could prove the fact that petitioner was found manufacturing the liquor, therefore, section 3 of P.E.H.O. Is not attracted in the instant case and as regards section 4 it is bailable offence, therefore, the petitioner is liable to be released on bail. He further submits that both the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And he lastly submits that there is clear violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. As police had not associated any independent witness in the recovery process.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab, opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role of selling huge quantity of liquor. There is no mala fide on the part of police to falsely implicate the petitioner. He further submits that huge quantity of liquor has been recovered from the petitioner alone and all the police officials fully corroborated narration of F.I.R. Which connects the petitioner with the commission of offence and he lastly submits that report of Chemical Examiner is also positive, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel and have also perused the available record. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner was caught red-handed by the police while being in possession of huge quantity of liquor but at the same time this Court has to examine the case from all angles and as per facts and circumstances of the case and according to the story narrated in the F.I.R., petitioner was carrying 50 liters of liquor in a can of Gallon. It is practically impossible to have 50 liters of liquor in a can of gallon which has the capacity of only 4.5 liters. There is no other can available which contained 50 liters of liquor, therefore, bare reading of F.I.R. Seems improbable, implausible, false, fabricated and unbelievable. As regards Article 3 under which the petitioner is liable to be tried, I am afraid, it is not attracted in the instant case, for the reasons that Article 3 deals with manufacturing and selling of liquor and in the instant case, none of the ingredients of Article 3 of P.E.H.O., 1979, are attracted as there is no evidence regarding manufacturing or selling of the said liquor. Police did not recover any Watak money from the petitioner which could prove the fact that he had sold some liquor, therefore, Article 3 is not at all attracted in this case. As far as Article 4 of P.E.H.O. Is concerned it is bailable offence. I may also observe here that the petitioner was apprehended during day time and police could have easily associated any independent witness from the locality in the search process which I am afraid has not ' been done. Therefore, it is a clear violation of section 103, Cr.P.C.
For not associating independent witnesses of the locality in the search process, meaning thereby that false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I am convinced that the petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt, hence, I admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.