' Muhammad Sharif son of Muhammad Rafiq and Muhammad Jamil son of Muhammad Hanif petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,383, registered at Police Station Saddar Chishtian, on 20-11-2003, for offence under section 17(3), Haraabah of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, read with sections 406/420, P.P.C.
2. The relevant facts, per F.I.R., are that the complainant worked with his father, proprietor Unique Cotton Factory. Chak No, 47/F, Hasilpur Road, Chishtan. On 11-11-2003 at about 10-00 a.m.
Muhammad Sharif petitioner went to the complainant and suggested to him that cotton was available in Hasilpur with Muhammad Masroof (his Hamzult) and he could help the complainant in purchase of cotton. He further suggested that either the complainant should pay Rs,6,00,000 or he should accompany him for the purchase of cotton. The complainant took Rs,6,00,000 from his father in the presence of Muhammad lqbal and Muhammad Ramzan P. Ws. Thereafter the complainant and Muhammad lqbal sat in a car of Muhammad Sharif. After about 2 Kms.
Muhammad Sharif stopped the car and accommodated Muhammad Jamil and another person in the car. When they were within the vicinity of Chak No, 9/FW. Muhammad Sharif stopped the car and took out a pistol. The unidentified accused also took out a pistol and at the strength of weapons Muhammad Sharif snatched Rs,6,00,000 from the complainant Muhammad Jamil dragged complainant out of the car. Muhammad Iqbal was also forced out of the car. Thereafter all the three accused left the scene of occurrence. The complainant narrated the incident to his father, who approached the relatives of the accused and described the occurrence. As the matter could not be settled, the relatives of the accused and the respectables of the area promised that the snatched amount would be given back to the complainant. However, the compromise was not fulfilled and the matter was reported to the police.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the matter was reported to the police after a delay of nine days; that offence under section 17(3) Haraabah of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, has been deleted; and that it was a matter of civil nature. The learned counsel while referring to Annexure-C of this petition submitted that the complainant party owed Rs,4,00,000 to the accused and had issued a cheque in favour of the petitioners, which was disowned on 30-11-2002. He further argued that Muhammad Sharif had filed a civil suit against the complainant his brother, father and the Police Officers, wherein it has been mentioned that the complainant party owed Rs,4,00,000 to the petitioner/plaintiff Muhammad Sharif and a cheque was issued in favour of Muhammad Sharif, which was disowned. He lastly argued that the petitioners were innocent and the allegations against them needed further probe and inquiry and relied upon; the following cases:--
(1) Dildar Ali v. The State (1999 SCM R 1316).
(2) Dastgir v. The State (2000 M LD 240).
(3) Sajeel Rashid and another v. The State (2003 PCr.R (SC) 573).
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State have opposed this application and have argued that the petitioners were duly named in the F.I.R. And had actively participated in the occurrence; that during all the investigations the petitioners were found involved and incomplete challan/report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been prepared against the petitioners; that the petitioners did not deserve extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail, as the police/complainant had no motive or previous grudge against the petitioners, so as to involve, them in a false case. Reliance has been placed on the case of Murad Khan v. Fazal-e-Subhan and another (PLD 1983 SC 82).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record minutely.
It has been noticed that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has been explained in the F.I.R. Itself; that the version of the complainant was supported by the statement of Muhammad Iqbal-P.W. Which was recorded soon after registration of the case; that a perusal of the relevant record reveals that the story of F.I.R. Was also corroborated by the statement of Ghulam Muhammad son of Lal Khan, who A is an independent witness; and that the case was investigated by the different police officers, all of whom were of the opinion that the petitioners have committed an offence albeit under sections 406/420, P.P.C. And challan/report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been prepared against the petitioners accordingly. In the case of Muhammad Safdar and other v. The State (1983 SCM R 645) the Apex Court has observed as follows:- - "The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners overlook the fact that bail before arrest is not the rule in cognizable offence, and is to be allowed only when it can be shown that the petitioner apprehends arrest due to some ulterior motives on the part of the authorities or other influential persons, or there are some peculiar features of the case which would justify the exercise of this discretionary power by High Court or the Sessions Court. In the present case, no such features appear to be present. An incident has admittedly taken place between the parties, in which the petitioners are accused of having caused injuries to Muhammad Sadiq of the opposite party. In the normal course of criminal law the petitioners can legitimately ask for bail only after their arrest and not before arrest."
6. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not apply to the instant case.
7. In the above-noted circumstances, I am not inclined to accept this petition and the same is dismissed.
8. However, it is made clear that the observations made by this Court are only tentative in nature and relate to the principles of pre-arrest bail alone.