' MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner/accused was booked for the above offences vide FIR No,09/2016 registered under section 3/4 of Enforcement of Hadood Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Singual District Ghizer.
2. The concession of bail was not extended to him by the trial Court vide judgment/order dated 29- 03-2016, hence he has come to this court for the same relief.
' Mr. Muhammad Saleem, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that Section 3 of the Ordinance entails punishment of only five years, while the punishment provided under section 4 of the Enforcement of Hadood Ordinance-1979 is only 2 years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner/accused is first offender and he is in judicial lock up after completion of investigation. Per learned counsel his detention in prison will not serve any useful purpose.
4. On the other hand the learned Dy.A.G. Submitted at bar that no earthly reasons have been shown for false implication of the petitioner/accused and a huge quantity of Charas has been recovered from his possession, which disentitles him for concession of bail.
5. It is admitted fact that the case was registered by the local police under sections 3/4 of Enforcement of Hadood Ordinance-1979 and the punishment provided in the imposed section does not fall within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Now all most all, it is admitted legal proposition that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C., the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. No any special exception has been pointed out by the learned Dy.A.G., which may persuade my mind to refuse the concession of bail to the petitioner/accused.
' In view of the above discussions, the petitioner/accused is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs,500,000 (Rupees five lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.