1999 PLP 313 (YLR)

A case under section 302/34, P.P.C., is registered against the petitioners vide F.I.R., No. 630 of 1998, dated 20‑9‑1998 at Police Station Phool Nagar, District Kasur on the report of Mehanga son of Muhammad Eisa. It was contended in the report that all the petitioners while armed with .30 bore pistol each, knocked at the door of house of the complainant at about 1:00 a.m. in the night. One of the sons of the complainant namely Zulfiqar Ahmad opened the door, whereupon all the three petitioners forcibly entered the house and went to the ' Chobara' where the complainant and his family members were asleep. The petitioner namely Muhammad Jamil alias Jeela and his co‑petitioners made an effort to forcibly take away the daughter of the complainant namely Shabana. They also shouted that if anybody tried to intervene, he shall be shot dead. The brothers of the aforesaid Shabana and sons of the complainant namely Zulfiqai Ahmed and Maqsood Ahmad tried to intervene in order to save their sister, whereupon, one of the intruders namely Muhammad Jamil alias Jeela fired with his pistol at one out of them i.e., Maqsood Ahmad. The fire injury proved fatal.

2. The petitioners applied for pre‑arrest bail in which it was contended that the heirs of the deceased had forgiven them for which they placed on record the affidavits of parents of the deceased. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the bail before arrest moved by the petitioners vide his order, dated 7‑1‑1999 made an observation that . challan against all the petitioners had been prepared under section 512, Cr.P.C. showing the petitioners as Proclaimed Offenders. The weapons of offence were vet to be recovered and that the petitioners being influential persons and the complainant being a potter (Kumhar) the free consent of the complainant i.e., above said heirs was also considered to be doubtful.

3. After the dismissal of the petition for pre‑arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioners have moved this application on the same grounds. It is contended that the mere fact that the petitioners had been declared Proclaimed Offenders would not disentitle them to pre- arrest bail. However, it does not appear to be a sound contention. A fugitive from law cannot ask for extraordinary relief. It was further contended that the affidavits sworn and tendered before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge were good enough for admitting the petitioners to pre‑arrest bail and since the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to exercise that power in favour of the petitioners, therefore, the impugned order was bad in the eyes of law. Reliance was placed on PLD 1989 Karachi 281 Jagan and others v. The State.

4. Lastly, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since parents of the deceased have forgiven the petitioners, therefore, they are entitled to pre -arrest bail as there would be no evidence calling for consideration even if the trial is held.

5. I have taken into consideration the foregoing facts and find that the petitioners while armed with pistols, as aforesaid, entered the house of the complainant at the dead hours of the night and made an attempt to forcibly take away the daughter of the complainant. The brothers of the victim tried to intervene, whereupon, out of them one Maqsood Ahmad was shot dead. The petitioners, therefore, prima facie appear to have acted desperately and heartlessly. The mere fact that they had tendered affidavits before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge during the hearing of the pre -arrest bail would in no way create any extenuating circumstance at this stage particularly when none of heirs had personally appeared before the Court to affirm that a genuine compromise had taken place. Even the learned Additional Sessions Judge doubted the bona fide of the compromise as the petitioners were declared Proclaimed Offenders and were also desperate and influential persons qua the complainant party. In such a situation, the, learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified to take the view that the petitioners had no case for pre‑arrest bail. No exception can be taken to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge nor there seems to be any good ground or extenuating circumstance for admitting the petitioners to pre‑arrest bail by this Court.

6. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. Since the petitioners are shown to be absconders, therefore, they may be taken into custody.

7. Disposed of with the disposal of the main petition. Bail refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑987/K