1999 PLP 1466 (YLR)

The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is involved in a case F.I.R. No.198 of 1998 which was registered under section 452/354/337‑A (ii)/A(i) F(i)/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Shahkot on 29‑7‑1998.

2. Petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.56 of 1999 on 2‑1‑1999 vide Diary No.75 which was fixed before this Court on 4‑1‑1999 and the same was disposed of and petitioner was granted protected bail for 15 days. It is further stated that petitioner submitted bail bonds before the Illaqa Magistrate on 16‑1‑1999. He further states that comp lainant‑party is very influential and the petitioner as abundant caution filed this petition for bail before arrest on 5‑1‑1999 which was fixed on 6‑1‑1999 and the petitioner was granted pre‑arrest bail by my learned brother Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi, J. on 6‑1‑1999; it is further stated that Ashiq Hussain s/o Mahi co‑accused has filed Crl. Misc. No.8‑B of 1999; whereas Ashiq Hussain s/o Muhammad Ali also filed Crl. Misc. No.39‑B of 1999 which were disposed of by my learned brother Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi, J. vide order, dated 15‑1‑1999 in the following terms:‑ "The petitioner filed bail application before the trial Magistrate which was dismissed on 21‑12‑1998 and the petitioner have already moved bail application before the learned Sessions Judge and the aforesaid bail applications which were withdrawn in order to avail their remedy before the proper forum. Disposed of as having not been pressed." Petitioner's counsel stated that aforesaid Ashiq Hussain s/o Mahi and Ashiq Hussain s/o Muhammad Ali submitted bail application before the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura, who granted bail to them as the complainant Mst. Zubaida Bibi has given statement that the case was registered on the basis of misunderstanding and in view of the statements of both injured Mst. Nusrat Bibi and Mst. Mumtaz Bibi, the accused are not the real culprits as they have got no objection to the grant of bail. He further stated that keeping in view the principle of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled for concession of bail as well as on the aforementioned statements of injured eye‑witnesses.

2. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that petitioner did not approach the learned A.S.J. as directed by this Court vide order, dated 4‑1‑1999 while disposing of the Writ Petition No.56, of 1999. He further stated that petitioner concealed material facts from this Court as the petitioner did not mention even a single word about filing of aforesaid writ petition in the present petition, therefore petitioner is not entitled to get discretionary relief on account of his conduct. He relied upon (PLD 1963 Lah. 443), (PLD 1986 SC 347). He further stated that statements of both Mst. Zubaida and two injured are not before this Court and this Court cannot take into consideration those documents; that petitioner did not utter a single word in his petition qua malice of police, therefore, this petition is not maintainable: He relied upon PLD 1984 SC

192. He further stated that Police is supporting the cause of the petitioner as the Police did not arrest him till issuance of non -bailable warrants by the competent Court; that contention of petitioner's counsel that petitioner was declared innocent by the Police has no force at the findings of the Police is not binding on the Court. He relied upon PLD 1998 Lah.

3. It is further stated that mere reading the contents of F.I.R. it reveals that petitioner insulted the ladies and injured them and also tresspassed the house of ladies, therefore, the action of petitioner is against the Injunction of Islam. He relied upon PLD 1998 Lah: 35; that the allegation against the petitioner is that he injured the victim by his Sota and police is yet to recover the same from the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to grant bail. He relied upon PLD 1984 SC 192.

3. In rebuttal the petitioner's counsel stated that since the co‑accused have already been granted bail by the learned A.S.J. on the statement of complainant and‑ injured eye witnesses, therefore, basis of F.I.R. is not substainable in the eyes of law and benefit must be given to the petitioner. He relied upon 1995 PLR

467. The petitioner has been involved in the aforesaid case on account of political rivalry; that fifty‑nine local Councillors have filed affidavits including Lumbardar and Imam Masjid and on the basis of which the police has declared the petitioner innocent. The petitioner has also filed an application before competent Court under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. for his discharge.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has filed W.P. on 2‑1‑1999 and protected bail was granted to the petitioner for 15 days. The petitioner did not approach the competent Court and filed present petition's on 5‑1‑1999 and did not mention a single word about the filing of writ petition which was disposed of vide order, dated 4‑1‑1999. Since the petitioner has concealed the material facts from this Court. While exercising powers under section 498, Cr.P.C. read with section 497, Cr.P.C. is of discretionary in character, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner who has concealed the material facts from this Court as the principle laid down in the following judgments:‑‑ PLD 1963 Lah. 443; PLD 1986 SC 347; PLD 1973 SC 236; 1998 SCMR 1462; 1969 SCMR 141 and 1993 SCMR

196. In view of the conduct of the petitioner I do not take into consideration the other contentions raised by the parties.

5. For what has been discussed above, this petition has no force and the same is dismissed. The petitioner is well within his right to agitate the matter before the competent Court and in case the petitioner approaches the competent Court, then the said Court shall decide the same without influencing the aforesaid observation strictly in accordance with law. Q.M.H./M.A.K./Z‑82/L Bail refused.