2010 P Cr (PLP)

MUNIB AKHTAR, J.

The present bail applicants had applied for pre-arrest bail by means of the present bail application and interim pre-arrest bail was granted to them on 2-10-2009. The matter was finally heard today and upon conclusion, the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants had been confirmed on the same terms and conditions. The following are the reasons for the confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail. The present application arises out of F.I.R. No.6 of 2009 registered at Police Station Landhyoon on 3-5-2009 and relates to an alleged incident that took place 13 days earlier on 20-4-2009. According to the complainant, he owns agricultural land in Keti Morio where he cultivates wheat crop. On 20-4-2009 he along with two other persons was looking after the crop, and at night he and his companions stayed on the land in a hut that had been built by him on the land for such purposes. At around 9-00 p.m. they heard some noise and commotion and saw 9 or 10 persons coming towards them. The complainant identified seven of the men by means of torch-light and stated that other three persons, though unknown to him, could be identified by him subsequently if he saw them again. The men were armed and threatened the complainant party to remain silent. Thereafter, they robbed the complainant party of the property stated in the F.I.R. and also set the hut on fire. In this regard, present applicant Liaquat is specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. as setting fire to the hut. Thereafter, the accused men ran away firing in the air. The complainant states that they returned to their village in the morning wishing to disclose the facts to one Manzoor Ahmad Khuhro, but he was not available as he had gone to Karachi. The complainant stated that the aforesaid Mr. Khuhro returned from Karachi on 3-5-2009 and after discussing the matter with him he came to the police and the F.I.R. was accordingly registered. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there was a delay of 13 days in the filing of the F.I.R. for which no proper explanation had at all been given. He further submitted that when the police visited the place of incident, according to report of the site visit there was no trace of any fire or any burn marks on the ground as well. In fact, according to learned counsel there was no indication at all from the report of the place of incident that any offence had occurred. It is also submitted that some years earlier, a member of the complainant party had filed an F.I.R. against some persons, including the present applicants, being Crime No.9 of 2003 at Police Station Landhiyoon, in which virtually the same allegations as made in the present F.I.R. were made against the present applicants. This F.I.R. after investigation was disposed of as cancelled. There was thus a history of enmity between the complainant and accused party and the complainant party was abusing the process of law for mala fide purpose by filing false F.I.Rs against the accused party including the present applicants. He prayed that interim pre-arrest bail be confirmed. Learned A.P.-G. submitted that delay in filing of the F.I.R. has ' been explained and there was a specific allegation against the accused in the F.I.R. He however, conceded that the police report of the place of incident did not show any offence or indicate that an offence of the nature as alleged in the F.I.R. had been committed there. In my view the delay has not been explained satisfactorily and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is, an excessive delay which ought to be taken into consideration as a relevant factor for the purpose of the present bail applicants. Although the complainant had identified not less than 7 of the 10 men who had allegedly engaged upon criminal activity (and that too by means of torch-light alone) he nonetheless remained inactive and silent for a period of 13 days. The purported explanation for this delay, as stated in the F.I.R. does not inspire confidence at all. The fact that there had previously been an F.I.R. lodged against the accused party, including two bail applicants, by the complainant party on virtually identical facts which after police investigation was disposed of as cancelled, prima facie indicates that there is male fide intent and an attempt to involve the present applicants in criminal proceedings as a result of long-standing enmity between two parties. The police while investigating the matter ought to have taken into consideration the fact that according to their own inspection of the place of incident there did not appear to be any visible signs at all of the alleged incident. However, instead of doing so they appear intent(sic) on arresting the present applicants in a manner which is unfortunately all too typical for police investigations in this country. On the whole, the narrative as given in the F.I.R. does not at least for the bail purposes, inspires confidence and since there appears to be prima facie mala fides in the matter, I am satisfied that the bail applicants have made out a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail. For the foregoing reasons interim pre-arrest bail which had been earlier granted was confirmed on the same terms and conditions. Needless to say, the observations made in this order are of a tentative C nature and only for purpose of this bail application. Nothing herein shall affect the determination of the facts at the trial or influence the trial Court in reaching its decision on the merits of the case. H.B.T./A-3/K Bail confirmed.