2004 PLP 1998 (YLR)

Ch, Muhammad Afzal for the State. Date of hearing: 14th October, 2003. Haji Muhammad Siddique petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.435, dated 2-9-2003, for offences under sections 452, 354, 148/ 149, 506, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Sadar Arifwala, District Sahiwal.

2. The prosecution story, in brief as disclosed in the F.I.R. lodged by Farzand Ali complainant are that on 22-8-2003 at about 9-00/ 10-00 a. m. Muhammad Siddique petitioner armed with hatchet alongwith his co-accused Muhammad Saleem armed with pistol .30 bore, Muhammad Sharif armed with rifle .7-MM, Muhammad Mumtaz armed with carbine and Muhammad Bashir armed with "Cappa" while climbing over the wall forcibly entered into his house. Muhammad Bashir co-accused caught hold the wife of complainant's brother from her hair and all the co-accused raised a Lalkara that if she will give her statement against them in the murder case of her husband in case F.I.R. No.375 of 2003, they will done her to death. On raising hue and cry, the witnesses attracted to the spot and rescued them from the accused.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a delay of 11 days in the registration of the case; that no active role is attributed to the petitioner; that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was present armed with a hatchet; that the offence with which the petitioner is charged does no fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It is further argued that the instant case has been registered against the petitioner due to mala fide of the complainant because the petitioner had been siding with the persons who are being involved by Mst. Razia in the murder of her husband.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed this application by contending that there is no mala fide attributable either to the complainant or police; that the role attributed to the petitioner constitutes section 452, P.P.C.

5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner did not play any active role in the instant case despite the fact that he was allegedly armed with a hatchet. The offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The delay in the registration of the case is totally unexplained in the F.I.R. The possibility of involvement of the petitioner in the instant case due to the mala fide of the complainant on account of murder of her husband cannot be ruled out at this stage. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 3-10-2003 is confirmed. Interim pre-arrest bail confirmed. H.B.T./M-249/L