' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,597 of 2007 dated 8-7-2007 for offence under sections 186, 506 and 141-2A of Punjab Local Government Ordinance at Police Station Ghalib Market, Lahore.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and his co-accused while armed are alleged to have extended threats of dire consequences to the complainant and other officials of the Lahore Development Authority on being restrained from raising unauthorized construction on the plot owned by the petitioner and his brother.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant for ulterior motive; that the F.I.R. Had been lodged with a delay of three months which had not been explained; that the description of the weapon allegedly carried by the petitioner has not been provided in the F.I.R.; that the offence under section 186, P.P.C. Was punishable with six months' imprisonment and was, therefore, bailable; that the provisions of section 506(ii), P.P.C. Were not attracted to the case; that the offence under section 141 of Punjab Local Government Ordinance was punishable with maximum sentence of three years, therefore, the same did not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And that no incriminating material was available on the record against the petitioner as he had nothing to do with the ownership of the plot in question.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has vehemently opposed the petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. After the demise of the father of the petitioner and his brother a suit for partition was filed, wherein a consent decree was passed by the learned Civil Court on 28-7-2006, as a consequence whereof the property in question fell to the share of Khawaja Zahid Javed, the brother and co- accused of petitioner. The documents placed on the record reveal that after the implementation of the decree, the petitioner had nothing to do with the property in question. Khawaja Zahid Javed filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Lahore Development Authority impleading the Director Town Planning (the complainant of the F.I.R.) as one of the defendants. On 17-11-2005 the learned Civil Court issued an injunctive order restraining the defendants from interfering in the business of the owners and demolishing the suit property. It appears that during the continuance of the said injunctive order the complainant had decided to demolish the construction being carried out on the plot. The argument advanced by the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General that the injunctive order issued by the learned Civil Court had not been shown to the officers at the time of their arrival at the spot is devoid of any substance as the complainant as well as other officers of the L.D.A. Were fully aware of the injunctive order issued by the learned Civil Court way back in 2005 which was still in effect. The complainant and the others should have refrained from carrying out demolition without first getting the stay order vacated. Further, the offence under section 186, P.P.C.
Is punishable with 6 months' R.I. And is, therefore, bailable and prima facie the provisions of section 506(ii), P.P.C. Are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. Insofar as offence under section 141-2A of Punjab Local Government Ordinance is concerned, the same is punishable with three years imprisonment and is, therefore, not covered by the prohibition contained in subsection
(1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In cases not punishable with death, transportation of life or ten years' imprisonment, grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception as has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the present case Tariq Bashir v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34.
7. For what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 2-8-2007 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.