1999 PLP 430 (YLR)

Mubashir Latif Ahmad for Petitioners. A case under sections 171, 506 and 452, P.P.C., is registered against the petitioners on the ground that they committed trespass into the house of complainant Ahmad Nawaz on 28‑8‑1998. while Ghulam Musafa was armed with .12 bore gun, Ghulam Sabir armed with .222 rifle and rest of them were armed with sotas. They raised Lalkara and opened the door of the house by breaking its latch. They started abusing and threatened the inmates of the house with their lives. In addition to the present petitioners named in the F.I.R. three unknown persons wearing the Rangers uniform accompanied them. They were holding dogs and gave out that they had brought those dogs from Army for detection.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier to this occurrence F.I.R. No.342 of 1998 under sections 457 and 411, P.P.C., was lodged by Ghulam Sabir one of the accused of the present F.I.R. against the complainant side and that the present case was allegedly the counter blast of the aforesaid case. It was further contended that petitioners have been found innocent in successive police investigations conducted upto D.S.P. level and that 4th investigation is yet in progress. It is, therefore, submitted that present F.I.R. against the petitioners is motivated and tainted with mala fide on the part of the complainant side who are allegedly in league with the police.

3. The petitioners applied for pre‑arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, who dismissed the same vide order dated 6‑3‑1999 on the ground that there is no mala fide on the part of police or the complainant to implicate the present petitioners falsely in this case. Since they had committed trespass into the house of the complainant while heavily armed and had threatened the lives of inmates of the house, therefore, considering it not a fit case for pre -arrest bail, their bail petition was dismissed by the Court below.

4. The petitioners instead of surrendering to the Court after dismissal of their bail petition managed to escape and moved Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1458‑B of 1999 through Mr. Muhammad Tahir Chaudhry, Advocate for pre‑arrest bail taking almost same grounds which have been agitated in this petition. That bail petition was fixed on 16‑3‑1999, but the learned counsel for the petitioner made statement whereby he requested for withdrawal of that petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn. After dismissal of the aforesaid petition the present petition is filed with the plea that petitioners were present out side the Court when their application came up for hearing, but their case was not called out, and, therefore, they did not enter the court room. However, their counsel appeared in the Court and informed that he had withdrawn the petition without their instructions. Hence this petition. However, same grounds have been agitated which were agitated in the previous petition.

5. I have considered the foregoing facts and find that petitioners had wrongly stated in the petition that their case was not called out. In this regard, it may be observed that when the case was called out, the learned counsel for the petitioners appeared in Court and after some discussion made statement that he would withdraw the petition and as such the same was disposed of accordingly. The plea taken by the petitioners that the application was dismissed as withdrawn without instructions to their learned counsel for withdrawal does not seem plausible nor justified by the record.

6. Now coming to the merits of this case, it is clear that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and each one of them has been assigned a specific role. Out of them three had disguised themselves as Rangers by putting up uniform and had brought some dogs with them proclaiming that they had detected the accused on account of their special training. However, it was allegedly a drama in order to commit the offence shown in the F.I.R. The fact that the petitioners have been allegedly declared innocent is not borne out from the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, but admittedly the investigation is yet in progress and has not been so far finalised. In such a situation, and since the petitioners while heavily armed had entered the house of complainant forcibly and had held threats to the lives of the inmates of the house, therefore, they have no case for pre‑arrest bail. particularly when their petition has already been refused on merits by the learned Additional Sessions Judge after taking into account the facts which have been narrated above. There is nothing wrong with the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge nor their is any merit in this petition, which is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./T‑60/L Pre‑arrest bail refused.