2002 PLP 3820 (YLR)

Zulfiqar Ali Qureshi for the Complainant. Mrs. Tehseen Irfan for the State. Date of hearing: 14th February, 2002. Through this application under section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.469 registered on 14‑11‑2001 under section 381‑A, P.P.C. at Police Station Motra, District Sialkot on the application of Javed Gill.

2. The brief allegations narrated in the F.I.R. are that the complainant is resident of Peero Chak, his sister Mst. Root Bibi wife of Javed Masih owned wagon Dala bearing Registration No.RIH/6268 and was plying the same from Badana to Kandan Span Road. Brother of the complainant used to drive this vehicle. On 8‑11‑2001 at about 3‑00 a.m. wagon was parked near the house of the complainant and some unknown persons had committed the theft and had taken away the vehicle. The complainant came to know about the theft of the vehicle at 6‑00 p.m. and complainant immediately informed the police about the theft of the vehicle and he continued to search for the vehicle and has stated in the F.I.R. that on 8‑11‑2001 he came know that Arshad Masih petitioner alongwith Amjad alias Nanha, who were earlier arrested in a Case No.44 of 1994 of Police Station Motra, case of theft of car in which they have been challaned had stolen the vehicle, hence, the case was registered against the petitioner and his co‑accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that three versions have been given by the complainant firstly he stated that was not aware of the fact that when the vehicle was stolen and some unknown persons had taken away the vehicle and subsequently name the petitioner as a person who had stolen the vehicle. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner sufficient grounds are available to hold that complainant had narrated the false story. It is further contended that the complainant actually wanted to grab the land of graveyard and the application was moved by the number of persons to XEN on 6‑9‑2001, the father of the petitioner is at serial No.3 out of the applicants who moved the application to XEN. The petitioner has been involved in this case due to these reasons with mala fide intention and ulterior motives and the case has been registered in connivance with the police officer. He has relied on 1991 MLD 1033 and prays for the grant of bail.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application of the petitioner on the ground that the vehicle is yet to be recovered and the petitioner has failed to make out any malice or to show any previous enmity for his false involvement in this case.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has also adopted the same arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with great care. The complainant has specifically mentioned the petitioner as one of the accused who had committed the theft of the vehicle mentioned in the F.I.R. and the complainant has specifically stated that earlier the petitioner and his co‑accused were involved in a case of 1994 in which the vehicle was stolen and they had been challaned in the said case. Specific allegation have been levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to show any reason for his false implication and the application has been proved by the residents of the locality against the complainant that he wanted to grab some property of the graveyard and one of the applicant is father of the petitioner. This can hardly be taken for the false implication of the petitioner in this case when the number of persons had given the application on 6th of September, 2001, and had there been any intention of false implication or the false registration of the case against the petitioner, the petitioner should have been named as an accused person straightaway by the complainant when the vehicle was stolen and there was no need to wait for confirmation before recording of the F.I.R. The petitioner has failed to show any reason for his false implication in this case. No doubt bail before arrest is meant to protect the innocent citizens and the discretionary relief can only be exercised in favour of the innocent citizens. For the time being there is sufficient evidence on record which requires thorough investigation and same can only be done after joining the petitioner and in such circumstances grant of bail before arrest will definitely hamper the investigation and the recovery is yet to be effected. Hence, the petitioner has failed to make out his case for bail before arrest which is dismissed. H.B.T./A‑658/L Application dismissed.