2002 PLP 3597 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑S.498‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.379/427/452/148/149‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, confirmation of‑‑‑No empties were recovered from the spot‑‑‑Accused had joined investigation‑‑‑Civil suit was also filed by complainant against accused on the next day after registration of F.I.R. seeking perpetual injunction against accused‑‑‑Bone of contention between the parties was possession of a plot ‑‑‑Offences against accused did not attract prohibitory clause of S. 497 Cr. P. C. and no injury was caused to complainant or to any other prosecution witness‑‑‑No useful purpose would be served if accused were sent to jail on some technical grounds‑‑‑Interim pre‑arrest bail already granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances. Ejaz Baig Mirza for Petitioners: Tariq Murtaza Khan Malaezai for the State. The petitioners Firdaus Hussain Shah, Syed Zainul Abidin and Fida Hussain Shah seek confirmation of their pre‑arrest ad Interim bail in case F.I.R. No.63 registered at Police Station Multan Cantt. On 3‑3‑2002 for offences under sections 379/427/452/ 148/149, P.P.C.

2. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioners are that the petitioners alongwith 10/15 persons entered into the house of the complainant and Zainul Abideen petitioner who was armed with 12 bore repeater fired in the air. It is further alleged that the petitioners demolished the outer wall and two rooms belonging to the complainant and removed certain valuables.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. No empties were recovered from the spot. Admittedly, the petitioners have joined the investigation. A civil suit was also filed by the complainant against the petitioners on the next day after the registration of F.I.R. seeking perpetual injunction that the petitioner should not interfere or trespass into the possession and property of the complainant. It appears that the bone of contention is possession of a plot. The offences do not attract prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and no injury was caused to the complainant or to any other P.W. In these circumstances no useful purpose would be served if the petitioners are sent to jail on some technical grounds.

4. For what has been discussed above I confirm the ad interim pre‑arrest bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court vide order dated 16‑5‑2002 subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./F‑119/L Pre‑arrest bail confirmed.