ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No. S – 295 of 2018

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of bail application

(Notice issued)

17.08.2018

Mr. Nazir Ahmed Junejo Advocate a/w Applicant

Mr. Jameel Ahmed Memon, APG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<

Through instant bail application, the applicant/accused Shah Nawaz Rajper has sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No.27/2018 registered at police station Kot Laloo, District Khairpur for an offence under Section 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979.

The facts as per FIR registered by ASI Zulfiqar Ali Shar at Police Station Kot Lalo are that on the date of incident, during patrolling in the area, he received a spy information that in village Ibrahim Rajper accused Shah Nawaz Rajper is manufacturing raw wine in his house, hence on receipt of such information he along with his staff went to the place of incident. On reaching there, the police party secured two drums containing 17 liters and 19 liters respectively of raw wine, but the accused who was selling the same on seeing the police succeeded to escape from the place of incident. The police party secured the said wine and separated 1 ½ liters from each drum for sample, hence such FIR was lodged.

Learned counsel submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by foisting raw wine upon him, whereas, as per FIR there is no independent eye-witness of the incident. He further contends that in all 36 liters of raw wine has been recovered from the place of incident, but only 1 ½ liters were sent to the chemical examiner, hence at the most the applicant/accused would be responsible for 1 ½ liters, as such the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. He lastly contends that the case is pending trial and applicant is attending the trial Court regularly, hence the applicant is entitled for confirmation of his interim pre-arrest bail. Learned APG on the other hand opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant/accused.

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned APG for the State and have perused the record. Admittedly out of 36 liters of raw wine, only 1½ liters sample has been taken, therefore, at the most the applicant would be responsible for the said quantity of wine, whereas, for the remaining, it cannot be believed either the same was wine or not; no independent eye-witness has been associated to witness such recovery of wine. Furthermore, the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The case has been challaned and the applicant is attending regularly. In view of the above circumstances, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant on 22.05.2018 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. The applicant/accused is directed to attend the trial Court regularly, if the applicant fails to appear before the trial Court, the trial Court would be at liberty to take action against the applicant and his surety in accordance with law.

Judge

ARBROHI