' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---Petitioner, Amir Masih seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No,244/2014 dated 23-6-2014 registered under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd)
Order, 1979 at Police Station Dinga, District Gujrat.
2. Allegation against the petitioner, in brief, as per contents of the FIR is that on 23-6-2014 at about 10:30 a.m., Iftikhar Ahmad S.I. Along with other police officials were present at Kolian Chowk Dinga on patrolling duty. At that time petitioner Aamir Masih came there while carrying a carton; being a suspect he was apprehended by the police and got recovered 45-bottles of liquor from the carton.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has wrongly been involved in this case; the facts stated in the FIR are false; the police sent the parcel of alleged sample after about 9-days from the date of alleged recovery of liquor; the story narrated in the FIR shows that he is in possession to carry 45-bottles of liquor in one carton; the petitioner has been involved in this case being a Christian; petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest i,e, 23-6-2014 and that the petitioner's case maximum falls under Article 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 which is a bailable offence and as such the petitioner is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
4. Learned D.P.G. While opposing the bail application submits that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with the specific role; he was apprehended by the police at the spot and huge quantity of liquor was recovered from the petitioner; the petitioner remained unable to explain why the police has involved him in this case and as such the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of post-arrest bail.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. As per contents of the FIR, the petitioner was carrying 45-bottles of imported liquor in one carton for drinking himself and selling it. Hence, in the absence of . a specific purchaser, the allegation against the petitioner qua sale requires recording of evidence. Prima facie, the case against the petitioner maxim falls under Article 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 which is a bailable offence. The petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest, investigation of this case is complete, so no useful purpose will be served for detaining the petitioner in jail for an indefinite period.
7. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to ,post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.