' 5-6-2006. IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Contends that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case with mala fide intention and ulterior motives, as they have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before registration of F.I.R.
2. Notice to the State for 8-6-2006. In the meanwhile, the petitioners shall not be arrested subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate.
1. Through this application under section 498, Cr.P.C. The petitioners seeks pre-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.198 of 2006, dated 8-5-2006, registered under sections 457/380, P.P.C., at Police Station A- Division, Okara on the statement of Manzoor Hussain, the complainant.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioners as alleged in the F.I.R. Is that on 8-5-2006 at about 4- 00 in the evening in the absence of the complainant, the petitioners along with two unknown ladies had entered the shop of the complainant by breaking the locks and stolen the cloth valuing Rs.4,000 and other necessary documents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Ashfaq Ahmad (father of the petitioners Nos.1 to 3) had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Okara on 29-4-2006 and the complainant is defendant. No.3 in the said suit, wherein he has claimed that he was in possession of the shop in-question and the shop in- question was purchased by him from one Shabbir Hussain, who is pursuing the civil suit; that said Muhammad Ashfaq has also filed another suit for permanent injunction, which is pending adjudication in the Civil Court, Okara in which stay order of said, shop was passed by the learned Civil Judge on 4-5-2005 and this case has been got registered subsequently with mala fide intention and ulterior motives by the complainant; that Muhammad Ashfaq, father of petitioners Nos.1 to 3 was arrested in the present case, but nothing was recovered from his possession and the complainant while appearing in the trial Court had raised no objection to the grant of bail to him and that in such facts and circumstances, it can be gathered that the dispute of possession of the shop between the parties has been converted into offence of theft to pressurize the petitioners, who are entitled to the grant of bail before arrest.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail petition on the ground that the complainant was not inimical towards the petitioners to falsely implicate them in the present case; that stolen articles are yet to be recovered from the petitioners; that the complainant had spent Rs.30,00,000 in his business and is running the shop in-question; that the witnesses have supported the prosecution story mentioned in the F.I.R. And that the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.
6.The petitioners are involved in a criminal case of theft and bail before arrest is meant to protect the innocent citizen, if they are found to have been involved falsely in the criminal case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive, but I do not find any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate themvin the present case. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners touch upon the deeper merits of the case, which cannot be considered at this stage and recovery is yet to be effected from the petitioners. Hence, it is not a fit case for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, which may hamper the investigation.
' Consequently, this bail petition being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed.