2019 P Cr (PLP)

SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.

Through this petition filed in terms of sections 497/498, Cr.P.C., the petitioner Muhammad Atif Shahzad seeks his pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.225/18, dated 20.09.2018, offence under sections 302, 324, 109, 34, 201, I.T.C., lodged at Police Station Safdarabad, District Sheikhupura, at the instance of respondent No.2/complainant.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, as contained in the crime report is that on 20.09.2018, at 9.00 p.m., four unknown accused persons while armed with their respective weapons launched attack upon the complainant party and resorted to straight firing, resulting into death of brother of the complainant namely Muhammad Aslam at the spot and receipt of injuries by the complainant on different parts of his body.

3. At the very outset, while opening his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the crime report. It is contended that as a matter of fact the petitioner who is an ASI in Police Department while performing his official duties arrested one Rana Tawakkal co-accused involved in a case falling under section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX), 1965, who is also involved in the instant case wherein one Muhammad Aslam was murdered brutally. The main crux of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being police officer has no nexus with the crime alleged and the allegations levelled against him are vague as the same are without any legal foundation. In such backdrop, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. 3(sic.) On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition with vehemence. It is argued that Rana Tawakkal co-accused who is involved in a number of cases of heinous nature having previous enmity with the complainant party, was taken into custody by the present petitioner in a case registered under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance (XX), 1965 with the allegation of keeping unlicensed .30 bore pistol which undeniably is bailable offence. Further contends that co-accused Rana Tawakkal was bailed out in the aforesaid Illicit Arms case after a period of twenty one days despite the fact that he was man of means and could arrange his surety easily. Submits that petitioner is close friend of co-accused Rana Tawakkal and old school-mate who managed his arrest persuading him for commission of the aforesaid crime and this aspect has been found correct during the course of investigation. The facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is argued, reflect that whole drama was staged with an intent to commit aforesaid offence.

4. Arguments advanced pro and contra have heard and record available on file perused.

5. The old fashioned story of hatching conspiracy of heinous offence has been repeated in the instant case. Primarily, this story was cooked up about thirty years back whereafter it has been brought into limelight in so many cases of heinous offences conspired, acted upon by the people involved in heinous offences. In the instant case, there is clear cut opinion of the Investigating Officer that the main perpetrator of the aforesaid conspiracy is Rana Tawakkal who is having long standing history of enmity with the complainant party while seeking the assistance of hired assassins to commit the crime of murder, was locked up in a case bearing FIR No.991/18, registered under section 13, of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX) of 1965 with police station Millat Town, Faisalabad, which in all eventualities is bailable offence but it is strange enough that said Rana Tawakkal remained behind the bars for twenty one days, although, it is an established fact that he is a man of means and there was no possibility that he could not arrange his surety for his release from the jail. This aspect has also been highlighted by the Investigating Officer that petitioner along with Rana Tawakkal is school-mate having very close nexus with each other and in this regard statements of a number of persons have been recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation supporting this aspect. It is an admitted fact that petitioner is a police officer and as such any act or omission at his part to promote crime is a more heinous offence. A person who has been inducted in the force to curb the crime if acts otherwise should be given an exemplary treatment so that none other could dare and even think to indulge in such like activities. Sufficient incriminating material is available on the record to saddle the petitioner with the responsibility. This is a pre-arrest bail and the same can be granted sparingly. The primary object of pre-arrest bail is to save the innocent persons from the apprehension of being arrested for a tainted purpose. Relief of pre-arrest bail is granted only in those matters where it would appear that the registration of such cases was based on enmity/mala fides or where no offence was shown to have been committed on the very face of the record, but position in the case in hand is otherwise. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of 'Muhammad Azam v. The State' (1996 SCMR 71), wherein it has been held as under:- "

S.498

Pre-arrest bail

Right of pre-arrest bail is limited to exceptional and rare cases which are based on mala fides/enmity or where no offence is shown to have been committed on the bare reading of FIR". Moreover, in the case of 'Muhammad Arshad and another v. The State and another' (1996 SCMR 74), the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as under:- "

S. 498

Pre-arrest bail

Relief of pre-arrest bail is granted only in those matters where it would appear that the registration of such cases was based on enmity/mala fides or where no offence was shown to have been committed on the very face of the record". Similar view was affirmed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of 'Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another' (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427). 3(sic.) For the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to extend the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail in favour of the petitioner. Resultantly, the petition in hand having no force is hereby dismissed in limine. SA/M-23/L Bail refused.