' Riaz Hussain, Ghulam Mustafa, Fida Hussain, Iqbal and Imam Bakhsh, the petitioners through the instant petition have sought for pre-arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No.91 dated 4-4-2003 originally registered under section 354, P.P.C. With Police Station, City Shujahabad, District Multan. Later on, the police have added section 452, P.P.C. In the same.
2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case as contained in the F.I.R. Are that on 12-3-2003 at about 9-10 p.m. The complainant Mst. Shabana Mai went to latrine in her house to answer the call of nature. As soon as she reached the same, all of a sudden Riaz and Iqbal, who were sitting there in ambush came out of the same. Riaz caught her from the wrist and dragged her in order to outrage her modesty. On her noise, Iqbal tried to shut her mouth with his hand. She due to the same gave shriek. Thereupon, they threatened her to kill in case she did not allow them to fulfil their sexual desire with her. In the meantime, her father Ameer Bakhsh and brother Shaukat Hussain came there running. Iqbal ran away from there. While, her father and brother caught Riaz. On their noise, Allah Wasaya and Muhammad Siddique residents of the village were also attracted to the spot. On the information of apprehension of Iqbal, Imam Bakhsh, Ghulam Mustafa, Fida Hussain and Allah Bakhsh armed with Sotas came to their house and they tried to get him (Riaz) released. They gave kicks to his brother Shaukat Hussain resulting into injuries to his arms and other parts of the body.
They also caught her from the hair and dragged her and subjected to violence. On the attraction of the people at the spot they ran away.
3. It has been contended on their Wulf that they have falsely been roped in that there is some delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that initially the case was registered under section 354, P.P.C., which is bailable; that the offence under section 453, P.P.C. Is not attracted in this case and rather the one under section 451, P.P.C. Which too is bailable; that in fact the complainant party had initiated aggression against them but the police with mala fide intention did not register the case against them and that is why they had to approach the Court for the purpose and thereafter the case was registered against them (complainant party) and all this speaks volume of mala fide of the police; and that as there is cross-version of the alleged incident, therefore, it is yet to be seen at the time of trial that who was aggressor and who was aggressed upon and hence, they deserve pre-arrest bail. In support of their plea reliance has been placed upon the case of Muhammad Akram and 4 others v.
The State 1992 M LD 1914 Lahore.
4. As against the same, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R.; that they after making preparation for launching assault upon the complainant had trespassed into their house and caused injuries to her (complainant's) brother and also tried to outrage her modesty; that the offence under section 452, P.P.C. Is fully attracted in this case from it's facts and circumstances; that the version of their side has been found false during the investigation and so the case (F.I.R. No.120 of 2003) registered with the same police station in respect of their version has been recommended to cancellation; that it is a case of highhandedness on their part; and that they at the time of announcement of the order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shujahabad had escaped therefrom and so are not entitled to the extraordinary pre-arrest bail.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6.They (petitioners) are named in the F.I.R. They all have been assigned specific role in the commission of the crime alleged. There is some explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. The case (F.I.R. No.120 of 1993) got registered by their side statedly has been recommended to cancellation being their version false.
7. F.I.R., P.P.C.From the bare reading of the the offence under section 453, which reads as under:-- "House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. Whoever commits house- trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Is attracted in this case."
They on the announcement of order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shujahabad on their such application statedly have escaped therefrom.
8. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that they are not pre-arrest bail. The case of Muhammad Akram and 4 others v. The State 1992 M LD 1914 Lahore, therefore, is not aptly applicable to their case.
9. The petition, therefore, is dismissed.