' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.--- petitioners are police officials and they have filed the instant application for pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No,748 of 2005, dated 16-8-2005 at Police Station Nishtarabad, District Faisalabad. The offences registered against the petitioners fall under sections 450, 380, P.P.C. And 155(c) of the Police Order, 2002.
2. Briefly according to the contents of the F.I.R., the complainant Mst. Nasim Bibi is a resident of Mohalla Razabad, Tandlianwala. In March, 2004 while she was present during the night time at her residence, 5/6 persons, some of them were in plain clothes and some in the police uniform, entered forcibly into her house while scaling over the outer wall. The said raiders included both petitioners i,e, Nazir Ahmad, Police Constable and Riaz Hussain, A.S.-I. The accused persons started illegal search of the house and took away Rs,1, 30,000 during the said search. On alarm, one Arshad, a neighbour of the complainant, turned up, who was given a slap by petitioner Riaz Hussain, A.S.-I. On his mouth; the said Arshad.Fell on the ground. Thereafter, the said police officials took complainant and her mother-in-law Salma Bibi to the Police Station Satiana and confined them in a quarter of police station. On the following day, one Abdul Shakoor, a relative of the complainant visited complainant at the police station, he was also confined. Thereafter, another relative of the complainant namely, Manga visited the Police Station Satiana and after paying illegal gratification of Rs,22,000 to S.-I. Javed Iqbal managed release of complainant, her mother-in-law and Abdul Shakoor. The complainant filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on whose direction D.P.O. Faisalabad, after making an inquiry, caused registration of the present case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the raid was conducted at the residence of the complainant to arrest proclaimed offenders who are relatives of the complainant. He submits that during the investigation, no finding has been recorded by the Investigating Officer against the petitioners of taking or removing the alleged amount of money. He submits that offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Are not covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He submits that no recovery has been effected from the petitioners and the raid was conducted as part of their duty instead of committing any offence.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that it is absolutely incorrect that no recovery has been effected. As a matter of fact, Rs,10,000 have been recovered from each petitioner. She also submits that during the investigation, petitioner No,2, Riaz Hussain, A.S.-I.
Conceded participation in the occurrence. Both petitioners conducted illegal raid which was conducted within the jurisdiction of Police Station Satiana without making necessary entries into record of the police station. She also submits that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. With an overt and active act.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. During the course of arguments as well as from the record produced in the Court, it is established that an illegal raid was conducted by the accused persons including both petitioners.
The said raid was conducted without fulfilling the legal requirements. Registration of this case cannot be believed on basis of any mala fide as it was registered on direction of the learned District and Sessions Judge after due inquiries. The petitioners are police officials, it is not expected that police would register a case against their own colleagues for reasons of any mala fide on their part of the complainant. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Do not fall within the prohibitory clause has no substance because for consideration of bail before arrest this is not a decisive consideration. The recovery has also been effected from both the petitioners who are assigned a role in the F.I.R. Which is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners, though he has made an attempt to shield their role under the guise of a `legal raid' which is not supported by any evidence. The petitioners and their co-accused not only trespassed into house of the complainant, they also humiliated and disgraced complainant and her mother-in-law. To cause further humiliation, they were also illegally confined in the police station. There are direct allegations, prima facie, supported by evidence against the petitioners to connect them with the commission of, the offence. The delay in registration of F.I.R. Is explained in the F.I.R. Itself. The case could not be registered against the accused unless interfered by the learned District and Sessions Judge as well as the D.P.O.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons enumerated above, I am not inclined to extend extraordinary concession of granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, hence this bail application is dismissed.