' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Abdul Rehman petitioner through this petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 424 dated 11-9-2009, registered with Police Station City Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran, for an offence under sections 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The petitioner has been declined bail by the learned Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca, vide their respective orders dated 16-9-2009 and 18-9-2009.
2. Allegation against the petitioner, as contained in the F.I.R., which was got registered by Zafar Iqbal, was that on raid conducted on spy information the petitioner was found manufacturing liquor at his house and the police party recovered 20 liters of liquor along with utensils being used for the said purpose.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's house was not a public place and the police could not conduct raid on his house without prior permission of the Magistrate. He makes reliance on the cases reported in (1998 PCr.LJ 591 Lahore). Further submits that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that maximum sentence provided in the law under which case is registered, is five years imprisonment; that section 4 of the Order ibid is bailable; that the utensils shown to have been used for preparation and sale of liquor, are house-hold utensils. Reliance is made on the case reported as 2002 PCr.LJ 1133.
4. On the other hand, grant of bail to the petitioner has been opposed by the learned DDPP on behalf of the State by contending that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.; recovery of illicit liquor was effected and the petitioner was arrested on 11-9-2009 and sent to judicial lock-up.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Place of occurrence as alleged by the complainant is not a public place and the police could not conduct raid without prior permission of the Magistrate A as held in the case reported as (1998 PCr.LJ 591 Lahore). Maximum sentence provided in the law for the offence under section 3 of the Order ibid is five year, whereas section 4 of the order is bailable, therefore, petitioner's case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Grant of bail is a rule and refusal B is an exception as held by the honourable Supreme Court in the cases reported as Tariq Bashir and others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) and Imtiaz Ahmad and another v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 545). A few lines from the referred case of Tariq Bashir (supra) are reproduced hereunder:-- "The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case, albeit his acquittal in the long run."
' Further few lines from the referred case of Imtiaz Ahmad and another (supra) are reproduced for guidance:-- "Even in cases where a person is accused of non-bailable offence and the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause, meaning thereby that the punishment prescribed for the offence is neither death nor imprisonment for life nor 10 years, the grant of bail in such cases is a rule and refusal an exception. My learned brother has referred in his judgment the decision of this Court in the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 which also lends support to the above view taken by me. It is, therefore, quite clear that refusal of bail to a person in a case where he is entitled to its grant as of right, can only be justified on some statutory provision or on grounds strictly relatable to the holding of a just and fair trial. Such refusal cannot be justified on any high principles of ethics or morality."
6. For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate. Observations in this bail-granting order are of tentative nature, will not prejudice the case of either side during trial.