' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--Imran Khan, petitioner, is accused of case F.I.R. No,179 of 2009 dated 20-5-2009 under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 registered with Police Station Tarnol, Islamabad.
2. According to the F.I.R, the prosecution case is that Muhammad Nawaz Gondal, S.-I, received special information that a Trailer No,287 loaded with two containers containing huge quantity of liquor was coming to Islamabad from Karachi. The complainant along with other officials set up a picket at Benazir Chowk on Fateh Jhang Road. At 8-45 p.m. The trailer reached the picket. It was stopped, Two persons ran away after alighting from it. They were chased. Two persons sitting in the trailer were apprehended. One of them was identified as Shahzad Khan, who claimed himself the driver of the trailer. The other one was allegedly conductor and his name was Asif. The containers were searched. The first two lines were loaded with coca cola, sprite and fanta bottles and beyond that there was liquor of different brands. Total liquor which was recovered was 8632 bottles and 4721 bottle bear. The persons who ran away from the spot were apprehended on chase and their names, were disclosed as Dost Muhammad and Imran Khan (Petitioner).
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the co-accused of petitioner namely Muhammad Asif was granted bail by Islamabad High Court and the case of petitioner is at par with said co-accused. It is further contended that the petitioner is critically injured and his arm and leg were fractured and was operated upon. It is further contended that there is no evidence that the petitioner has any connection with the commission of the offence and the case of petitioner is that of further inquiry. It is further contended that the alleged recovery was made on 19-5-2009 at 8-45 p.m. But the F.I.R. Was registered with a delay of 26 hours at 10-35 a.m. On 20-5-2009; that the raiding officer during this period had been bargaining a deal with the actual culprits and lastly the actual culprits were let off and the petitioner and his co-accused were apprehended as escape goat for the actual culprits. It is further contended that the case against the petitioner at the most is that of possession of liquor falling under Article 4 of the Prohibition Order, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of FIA has submitted that the petitioner is main culprit; that he arranged the whole business including import of foreign branded liquor, transport and he also got prepared fake document of Customs Department showing that the imported goods had been checked and cleared by the Customs Authorities as usually such like luggage is not checked by the Check Posts falling on way from Karachi to Islamabad. It is further contended that the petitioner tried to run away when the vehicle was stopped and met an accident with another vehicle and sustained injuries. It is also contended that the secret information was with regard to the petitioner and thus he was under surveillance, thus his role is not to a limited extent and that his co-accused Asif was driver of the trailer, he was granted bail on the ground that he might not be aware of the content of consignment loaded on his trailer.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. According to the allegation set up in the F.I.R. The petitioner was travelling on a trailer loaded with two containers containing huge quantity of imported liquor. He was also found in possession of documents of the Customs Department showing that the consignment was checked by the Customs Authorities and the luggage of the persons having such documents are not usually checked on the way. The petitioner tried to run away from the place of recovery after alighting from the trailer and met an accident and sustained injuries. The learned counsel for petitioner has not been able to prove that the said injuries were sustained by the petitioner else where. In such circumstances, prima facie, the evidence so far collected by the prosecution shows that the petitioner was transporting huge quantity of liquor and beer for the purpose of sale, thus he is not an accused of offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition Order, but also under Article 3 of the same Order, which entails punishment falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The co-accused of petitioner namely Asif was allegedly driver of the trailer and he has been granted bail on the ground that he might not be in the knowledge what had been concealed in the containers. The case of petitioner is not at par with the accused. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. This bail petition is accordingly dismissed.