2015 P Cr (PLP)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

Waqar Ahmad and Intizar Ahmad (petitioners) seek bail-before-arrest in case-FIR No.286/2013, dated 17-4-2013, registered for offences under sections 457, 380, P.P.C. at police station Hujra Shah Muqeem (Okara).

2. Precisely, the prosecution case as narrated by Ghulam Farid (complainant) is that he ran a motorcycle showroom and a spare-parts shop at Attari road; he shut his shops as usual at night between 15/16-4-2013 and went to his home; Waqar Ahmad (petitioner) and Intizar Ahmad (petitioner) joined by their co-accused broke into his shops and stole Mobil oil, spare parts, certain documents including registration books etc. worth Rs.26,17,000; he learnt about this incident when he went to his shops in the following morning, where Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Ashfaq met him who disclosed that his shops had been broken into by the said accused; the accused committed the occurrence only to forcibly occupy his property, whereas, he had obtained an injunctive order from a civil court.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the complainant is not an eyewitness of the alleged occurrence and he was informed about the incident by Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Ashfaq, who joined investigation on 17-4-2013 and rendered statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., wherein they endorsed the story of FIR with the contention that they witnessed the occurrence alleged, without mentioning as to the time of occurrence, or why they did not inform the complainant well in time, especially when one of them Ghulam Husin, hailed from the same village. Both the witnesses have mentioned the direction in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. wherefrom the shops of the complainant were allegedly burgled and it was the rear wall through which the accused allegedly got into the shops by making a hole therein. Interestingly, it is the house of the complainant Ghulam Farid, which is adjacent to the rear wall of the said shops. The complainant, who is in attendance admits said fact with the addition that he owned another shop which was adjacent to the burgled shops on its west and that the residential house of the accused was adjacent to his house, on it back. The contention of the witnesses in such a scenario reflects on their claim that they witnessed the accused' commit the crime. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General Punjab while referring to visual site plan, prepared by the investigating officer during spot inspection, verifies aforesaid contention of the complainant. Civil litigation, admittedly, is pending between the parties qua the shops-in-issue. The I.O. has recorded a finding of guilt qua the petitioners, which looks improbable as well as ridiculous as finding recorded shows that Waqar Ahmad (petitioner) purchased said shops in year 2008 from Muhammad Afzal and Abdul Ghaffar, the owners, whereafter, Ghulam Farid (complainant) purchased the said property from one Muhammad Mansha son of Gulab Din about 2 months prior to the occurrence. The contents of the FIR reveal that the complainant got lodged it with a fear at the back of his mind that the accused intended to "forcibly occupy" his shops and it may be a reason for their false involvement in this case. Both the parties, in their own right, have strong claims over ownership and possession of the said shops, which can be easily perceived from the circumstances enumerated hereinabove. There exist sufficient reasons to believe that the petitioners' case calls for further probe into their guilt within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., hence concluding argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that person of the accused was required by the police for recovery of 'stolen-property' loses relevance. Guidance in this regard may be had from cases, titled Shahid Imran v. The State and others (2011 SCMR 1614) and Muhammad Ashraf and another v. The State (1982 PCr.LJ 1286). For the reasons supra, the instant petition is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 14-6-2013 is confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. MWA/W-9/L Petition dismissed.