Lahore: liquor seller bailed
LAHORE: Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder of the Lahore High Court has granted post arrest bail to a petitioner involved in a case of selling liquor. Petitioner Waqas Shah was caught red-handed by city police Pakpattan Sharif while selling liquor. A case under sections æ of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (PEHO), 1979 was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner counsel pleaded that the section 3 of PEHO was not attracted in the case at all for the reason that there was no evidence regarding manufacturing or selling the liquor which had been recovered from him. Moreover, he argued, that the section 4 of the said Order was a bail able offence, therefore, the petitioner was liable to be released on bail.
The counsel said both the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C and there was a clear violation of section 103 of Cr.P.C. as police had not associated any independent witness in the recovery process. Meanwhile, a deputy prosecutor general appearing before the court opposed the bail application saying that the petitioner was nominated in the FIR with specific role of selling huge quantity of liquor. He said the police did not have any malafied intentions to falsely implicate the petitioner in the case.
After hearting the arguments of the both sides, Justice Bhinder observed that there was no denying the fact that the petitioner was caught red–handed by the police while being in possession of huge quantity of liquor but the court had to examine the case from all angles. He observed, ‘It is practically impossible to have 50 liters of liquor in a Can of Gallon which has the capacity of only 4.5 liters.
Therefore, bare reading of the FIR seems improbable, implausible, false, fabricated and unbelievable, the judge remarked. The judge also agreed with the argument of petitionerís counsel that the section 3 of PEHO was not attracted in the instant case.
He said the police had also violated section 103 Cr.P.C. by not associating any independent witness from the locality.
While granting bail to the petitioner, Justice Bhinder observed, For the foregoing reasons, I am convinced that the petitionerís case is that of further inquiry in to his guilt, hence, I admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.’