2011 PLP 1522 (YLR)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

Apprehending their arrest at the hands of the police, the petitioners have sought their bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No. 97/10, dated 14-4-2010, for the offence under section 379, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Chutiana, District Toba Tek Singh.

2. The precise allegation against the petitioners as per F.I.R. is that on 13-4-2010, the petitioners cut the crop of the complainant unauthorizedly with Tractor and Reaper measuring one and half acre valuing Rs.60,000.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are innocent, they have not committed any offence and the instant criminal case has been filed by the complaint with mala fide intention and with ulterior motives. Learned counsel further contends that Muhammad Sadiq co-accused is owner of the suit land and there is previous litigation between the petitioners and the complainant party, that is why the petitioners have been nominated in the F.I.R. by the complainant party. He has further contended that no occurrence has taken place, the F.I.R. has been lodged after a considerable delay of one day which shows the mala fide on the part of respondent No.2 who has no concern, whatsoever, with the disputed property as he is already in possession of more than his share. Further contends that the applications filed by respondent No.2 as well as Mst. Sakina Bibi for supardari of wheat crop clearly shows their internal dispute. He argues that in the circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to grant of bail before arrest, therefore, the interim bail granted to the peti?tioners vide order dated 21-7-2010 be confirmed.

4. On the other hand, learned Deputy-Prosecutor General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this bail application and has contended that Muhammad Sadiq purchased a share of the suit land from one of the co-sharers and without partition, tried to take over the possession of the suit land and cut the standing wheat crop of the complainant party. In support of his version, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has produced a copy of khasra gardawari. He has further argued that the crops and illegal lethal arms are yet to be recovered from the petitioners who are hardened criminals and if the bail at this stage is granted to the petitioners, it will frustrate the investigation by the police, therefore, the petition for bail before arrest be dismissed.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The perusal of the record shows that recently Muhammad Sadiq co-accused purchased the share of suit land and instead of filing suit for partition for his share, he tried to illegally dispossess the complainant party and in pursuance of his illegal designs, the petitioners cut the standing crops of the complainant and removed the crop from the fields. Register khasra gardawari annexed with the petition shows the possession of the complainant over the suit property.

7. The petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role. The investigating Officer of the case has contended that respondent No.2 (Bashir Ahmad) is in possession of the suit land from where the petitioners removed the wheat crop. During the investigation, the petitioners were found guilty by the police. The recovery of wheat crop and lethal weapons has yet to be effected from the petitioners. Bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief which cannot be extenced in such like matters as the petitioners have illegally trespassed in the agricultural land owned by the complainant party, forcibly cut the wheat crop and removed the crop from the fields on the pointation of lethal weapons. Further, the learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh dismissed the bail application of the petitioners on 16-7-2010 but they did not surrender themselves before the law and fled away.

8. As a result of above discussion, the interim bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 21-7-2010 is hereby recalled.

9. The observations made hereinabove are just tentative in nature which are meant for disposal of this bail application only and will not prejudice the case of either party at any stage. N.H.Q./M-462/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Pre-arrest bail refused.