' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.---The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,1033 of 2011 dated 31-12-2011, under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979 registered at Police Station D-Type Colony, Faisalabad.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as contained in the F.I.R., recorded on the strength of written complaint of Muhammad Akram, S.I/SHO, is that he along with his subordinates was present at Karoshan Pull on patrolling duty where he received spy information that Abdul Sattar (present petitioner) and Zahoor Hussain, co-accused are doing the business of wine, who after a short while would be coming from Faisalabad City towards Mohallah Farooqabad and if apprehended, contraband article will be recovered from their possession. On this spy information the raiding party was constituted. As per information a rickshaw came from the pointed place which was stopped and the driver and the passenger sitting in the rear seat fled away from the spot. The name of the passenger was Abdul Sattar and the driver was Zahoor Hussain. On search of Rickshaw three white plastic bags in which 500 liter imported liquor (murree Beverages), six bottles of liquor (Kino-3), 8'plastic canes in which 30/30 liters liquor, four white plastic bags 20/20 liters, out of all these recovered liquor 6 ounce each were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case with mala fide intention; that neither the petitioner is owner of said rickshaw nor driving the same and the story knitted by the police is very doubtful for the simple reason that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot; that the petitioner is not involved in the business of liquor; that the place, of occurrence is very thickly-populated area but no witness was associated in the recovery proceedings which is clear violation of section 103, Cr.P.C.; that Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979 is bailable while offence under Article 3 ibid is not made out from the facts and circumstances of the case; that the petitioner is in the judicial lock- up since 1-3-2012 and is no more required for the purpose of further investigation; and lastly that it is not possible that huge quantity of liquor in the form of canes and bottles can be recovered from a rickshaw. In these circumstances case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry, hence he is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
4. Conversely, the learned Additional Prosecutor-General has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the police has no enmity to falsely involve the petitioner in this case and plant huge quantity of liquor upon the petitioner; that from bare reading of F.I.R. Offence under section 156 of Custom Act is also made out; that Chemical Examiner report is in positive, and that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Prima facie liquor was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner but according to the contents of F.I.R. Huge quantity of liquor was recovered from the rickshaw and the ownership of which will be determined by the trial Court; It is not humanly possible that the petitioner and his co- accused could run away from the spot in presence of already informed complainant and his subordinates who were 9 in numbers. Allegedly huge quantity of liquor was recovered from Rickshaw and on the place which is thickly-populated area and it was accessible for general public but no witness from the locality was associated to join the recovery proceedings, hence requirement of law as contemplated under section 103, Cr.P.C. Is missing. Offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 is bailable whereas offence under Article 3 ibid does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497; Cr.P.C. In such a situation, case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry, hence he is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.