1986 P Cr (PLP)

1986 S C M R 1949 ref. Abdul Hameed Dogar for Applicants. Zawar Hussain. Jafferi, A.A.‑G. for the State. The brief facts‑of this case are that on 28‑5‑1985 the present applicant are alleged to have robbed complainant Noor Muhammad of his motor‑cycle at about 9 p.m. on the road leading to village Simang. Such report was lodged on 29‑5‑1985 at 11 a.m. The applicants were arrested on the police on the same day and were released on bail by police on 6‑6‑1985 after the expiry of remand period. It appears that the Investigating Officer did not find the case proved and as such investigation was handed over to C.I.A. police which also recommended the disposal of the case under 'B' class summary. However, under orders of the S.P. challan is now being submitted in the Court and police is taking steps to arrest the applicants who have consequently moved this application for bail before arrest. It is contended by Mr. Dogar learned counsel for the applicants that apart from the delay in the F.I.R. the alleged robbed motor‑cycle is admittedly recovered from some other person viz. Gul Muhammad. He further contends that the applicants have been involved due to enmity because three months prior to the alleged incident viz. on 24‑2‑1985 the present applicant Allah Bux had filed complaint under section 307 read with 34, P.P.C. against press it complainant Noor Muhammad and others. He further contends that police is acting mala fidely and they are arresting the appellants in violation of sub‑clause (6) of rule 26.21 of Police Rules, 1934. Sub‑‑clause (6) reads as under:-- (6) No Police Officer has power to re‑arrest an accused person who has been released on bail under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, when re‑arrest is deemed necessary, the police shall apply to a competent Court for the cancellation of bail bond and the issue of a warrant in accordance with the provisions of section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure. He further contends that mala fide of the police is evident from the fact that they have taken womenfolk of the applicants to the police station. He has relied on 1985 S C M R 1949 wherein the applicants were granted bail when they alleged that their womenfolk were illegally taken to the police station and the police was bent upon insulting humiliating and harassing the accused. Under the circumstances of the case learned A.A.‑G. has no objection to the confirmation of the interim bail before arrest already granted to the applicants, which is accordingly confirmed. S.G.D Bail allowed.