' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---The petitioner is an accused in case F.I.R. No.982 of 2005 dated 28-12-2005 registered at Police Station, Nawan Kot, Lahore under sections 406/506, P.P.C. The allegations against the petitioner are that he and his brother, namely, Abrar ul Haq took some furniture from the complainant in order to sell the same at their business point being carried out by them under the name and style of 'NILAAM GHAR' on the condition that the settled purchase price would be paid to the complainant after selling the furniture. The petitioner after obtaining furniture neither paid the purchase price in respect thereof nor returned the furniture to the complainant. On demand for the return of the furniture on account of non-payment of the purchase price the accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences on the telephone.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and his brother have paid the entire purchase price of the furniture obtained by them from the complainant and that no amount is outstanding against them. The F.I.R. Has been got registered against the petitioner on account of the fact that the petitioner stopped his business dealings with the complainant due to the defects in the furniture on account of which the petitioner had received a number of complaints. Further contends that the complainant is a very close friend of the S.H.O. Of Police Station Nawan Kot and on account of the harassment caused by the said S.H.O. The petitioner was constrained to file a civil suit on 15-12-2005 against the complainant and the said police officer which is still pending before the Civil Court at Lahore. The co-accused i.e. Brother of the petitioner, namely, Abrar ul Haq against whom similar allegations were levelled in the F.I.R. Has been granted bail by the learned Illaqa Magistrate on 7-1-2006 and the petitioner too is, therefore, entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Further states that the delay of three months in lodging of the F.I.R.
Shows that the case against the petitioner is false and that no direct evidence is available against the petitioner. The offences under sections 406 and 506, P.P.C. Are not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P . C .
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. And specific role had been attributed to him, that the provisions of section 406 and 506 P.P.C. Were fully attracted to the case of the petitioner. He further contended that recovery has yet to be effected from the petitioner and that civil litigation was no bar to the criminal proceedings and that no mala fides of the complainant could be established by the accused who was declared guilty by the Investigating officer and accordingly challaned.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Perusal of the F.I.R. Shows that the matter essentially is one of civil nature as the same relates to business dealings between the petitioner and the complainant. The mala fides of the complainant are obvious from the fact that the S.H.O. Concerned is one of the defendants in the civil suit filed by the petitioner which is prior in time to the F.I.R. Further the fact remains that Abrar ul Haq co- accused has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court on 7-1-2006 and according to the dictum laid down in the case of Gulsher v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 142) the petitioner is also entitled to the confirmation of his bail before arrest. The possibility of the F.I.R. Being lodged out of ulterior motives by the complainant cannot be ruled out. Although civil litigation is no bar to the criminal proceedings which can continue simultaneously, nevertheless one gets the impression that the F.I.R. Has been lodged in order to pressurize the petitioner through criminal process.
Reference is made to Ubedullah v. The State (2003 PCr.LJ 1921).
6. The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Are admittedly not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. As such the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. Reference may be made to Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). The delay of three months in lodging the F.I.R. Also reflects negatively on the entire prosecution case. It may also be noted here that contents of the F.I.R. Reveal that the petitioner had only extended verbal threats on the telephone. Mere verbal threats on the telephone would not attract the provisions of section 506 Part-II P.P.C. The offence would, therefore, fall within the ambit of section 506 Part-I P.P.C. Which is a non-cognizable offence for which punishment of two years is provided and is thus a bailable offence. There is not enough evidence on the record to connect him with commission of offences alleged against him.
7. Resultantly the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner is confirmed.