2019 Y L R Note 66

[Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court]

Before Malik Haq Nawaz, J

AZEEM KHAN—Petitioner

Versus

The STATE—Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 105 of 2019, decided on 2nd May, 2019.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—

—-S. 497—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979, Arts. 3 & 4—Prohibition of manufacturing intoxicant, owning or possessing intoxicant—Bail, grant of—Offence not falling under prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.—Recovery of 110 bottles of China liquor—Petitioner was caught red-handed in his car and on search of the car 110 bottles of China liquor were recovered—Article 3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 was non-bailable—None of the offences fell within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner was admitted to bail.

Ahmed Alam and Haq Nawaz Sheikh for Petitioner.

Dy. Advocate-General for the State.

Date of hearing: 2nd May, 2019.

ORDER

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.—The petitioner has been booked for the above offences under section 3/4 E.H.O-1979 of Police, registered on 18-03-2019.

2. The allegations contained in the FIR are that on spy information the car of the petitioner was searched and 110 bottles of China Liquor were recovered, which were taken into possession by the I.O. of the case in presence of the marginal witnesses and accordingly FIR was lodged against the petitioner.

3. Post arrest bail of the petitioner has been refused by the both the Courts below.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence under section 3 carries a punishment of only five year, while the punishment under section 4 is only 02 years. The offences does not fall within prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is first offender and no more required for the purpose of investigation. The detention of the accused/petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 2002 SCMR 1882, 2012 PCr.LJ 1924, 2005 PCr.LJ 453, 2007 PCr.LJ 611, 2000 PCr.LJ 533, 2007 MLD 79, 2000 PCr.LJ 374, 2012 PCr.LJ 1924, 2013 MLD 1509 and 2018 MLD 1909.

5. The learned Dy. Advocate General opposed the petition and submitted that a huge quantity of China Liquor has been recovered from the car of the petitioner. Section 3 of E.H.O-1979 is non bailable and the offence is against the society and bail has rightly been refused by the two below Courts.

6. The petitioner was caught red handed in his car and on search of the car 110 bottles of China Liquor were recovered. Section 3 of E.H.O-1979 is non bailable. The petitioner has no case at all for the grant of bail on merit but since non of the offence falls within prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,00000/- (Ten lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate at Gilgit.

7. Petition allowed.

MQ/63/GB Bail allowed.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email