1996 SCMR 74 (PLP)

RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.‑‑‑On 24th of July 1994 at about 2‑10 p.m., a case under section 364/342/337%L(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against Muhammad Arshad, Muhammad Idrees (petitioners) and 3' others with Police Station Shahdara, Lahore on the statement of Muhammad Zulfiqar. The petitioners, allegedly, abducted the complainant and injured him while he was in their custody. He was released by the accused only after receiving Rs.5,000 as illegal gratification. A petition for pre‑arrest bail was moved by the petitioners and an interim bail was allowed to them by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. Learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Lahore confirmed the bail on 25‑8‑1994. Bail after‑arrest to the remaining accused was also granted. The complainant (Zulfiqar) moved Crl. Misc. No. 3604‑B/94 for cancellation .of bail allowed to the accused. On 12th of September 1994, a learned Judge in the Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition of the petitioners while rejected the cancellation application to the extent of remaining. co‑accused observing:‑‑ "In view of the above discussion, petition to the extent of Arshad and Idrees, respondents 1 and 2 is accepted. The order dated 25‑8‑1994 of the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Lahore to their extent is set aside. The petition to the extent of Changaz and Abdur Rasheed, Constables, respondents 3 and 4 is. dismissed. It may be observed that the accused respondents 1 and 2 on announcement of the order, by pushing aside the learned Advocates in the Court managed to slip away. This conduct of the accused Police officials is reprehensible. The SSP, Lahore is directed to ensure that law have its own course. He may also see the desirability of having the investigation of the case conducted by some honest gazetted police officers of Crimes Branch." This petition seeking leave to appeal has been instituted. Learned counsel submits that the evidence so far collected by the investigator does not involve the petitioners in the commission of crime. According to him, the offence which is alleged to have been committed by the accused is bailable on the face of it. Abdul Rauf, A.S.I. and Malik M. Muzaffar, S.I. are present with record. They found the petitioners to be guilty of commission of crime. This being so, no relief could be given to the A petitioners inasmuch as, prima facie, they had taken the law into their own hands by giving beating and detaining the complainant in their custody without any legal justification. It is well‑settled that pre‑arrest bail relief is granted only in those matters where it would appear that the registration of such cases was Q based on enmity/mala fide or where no offence was shown to have been committed on the very face of record. This is not the position in this case. The petitioners belong to Police Department which has been created to prevent and detect crime, enforce the law and maintain public order, peace, and safety. The allegations having been levelled against the petitioners are horrible, indeed, and are against the purposes for which the Police Department was established. They, therefore, do not deserve this extraordinary discretionary relief of bail before arrest. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑3157/S Leave refused.