2011 P Cr (PLP)

SH. NAJAM-UL-HASAN, J.

Through this petition, the petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 678 dated 2010-2010 under sections 354/506/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Baghbanpura, District Gujranwala.

2. In brief the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. is that on 4-9-2010 at 8-00 a.m., Mst. Musarrat complainant was present in her house when Ruksana one of the accused came there and took the complainant to her house on the pretext that she was called by her husband Riaz (petitioner No.1) for the settlement regarding the rent of the house and the utility bills etc. where the complainant was beaten and threatened by the petitioners, as such the case was registered.

3. It is submitted that there is unexplained delay of one and half month in lodging of the F.I.R.; the petitioners have been falsely involved in this case; that the occurrence took place in the house of the petitioners and it was the complainant who came there on her own; that The offence under section 354, P.P.C. is bailable and bare perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that ingredients of section 506, P.P.C. are not spelt out; that there is only general role levelled against all the petitioners; that the complainant was not medically examined and there is nothing on record to indicate that she received injuries in the same occurrence and as such the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail.

4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General states that the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R; the complainant is a widow and this is a pre-arrest bail and no mala fide or ulterior motive has been gestured on the part of the complainant or the police and as such the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. In this case allegation against the petitioners and others is simple threat and no consequence of the same has been mentioned in the F.I.R. Criminal intimidation has been defined in section 503, P.P.C. which is as under: "Whoever threatens another with an injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation." The definition of criminal intimidation clearly indicates that consequence of threat will be in the event of certain act or a direction to forbid or omit to do certain act. Threat simpliciter does not come within the definition of criminal intimidation and as such is not punishable under section 506, P.P.C. In this case only threat has been made but no circumstance has been mentioned in consequence of which threat will be executed so ingredients of the offence of criminal intimidation are not spelt out from the contents of the F.I.R. Offence under section 354, P.P.C. is bailable. The petitioners have joined the investigation and are no more required to the police. Nothing has been recovered from the petitioners. It will be determined after recording of evidence whether the petitioners are involved in a non-bailable offence or not. No useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars. The matter relates to a mutual dispute between the parties. It was the complainant who came to the house of the petitioner and possibility of false implication of the petitioners by the complainant with mala fide intention cannot be ruled out. Consequently, this petition is accepted and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them stands confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-16/L Bail confirmed.