This order will dispose of Crl. Misc: No. 9154/CB/2006 titled as Mirza Ijaz Beg Versus The State etc. and Crl. Misc: No. 8800/B/2006 titled as Ahmad Raza etc Versus The State.
2. Learned Counsel for the complainant submits respondent Farman Ali alongwith 70 other persons while armed with firearm tried to take forcible possession of the School, they also tired to built fore wall, that Farman Ali respondent, forcibly, got the Uniform of Security Guard of said school and put the same himself, that ex-parte decree was obtained by the accused persons in the year 1992, thereafter, petition was filed by the complainant and that was dismissed on technical grounds, then, he filed revision petition before the learned Addl: Sessions Judge in which on 1.8.2000 a stay was granted and the said stay is still in the field. He submits that offence alleged against the respondent and the petitioners, who have filed bail petition, falls within the ambit of Section 497 (1)
Cr.P.0 so bail allowed to Farman Ali be cancelled and petition filed by Ahmad Raza etc should be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for respondent submits civil suit is pending between the parties, that ex-parte decree was passed in favour of the accused persons that was not set-aside by the Civil Judge though admits that revision, petition filed by the complainant still hold the field, where the stay had been granted. Further submits that Farman Ali respondent has not misused the concession of bail.
As far as, Ahmad Raza, Tanveer Akhtar and Awais Akhtar petitioners are concerned, learned counsel submits that they were not named in the FIR, that no recovery was effected from them, that Section 395 PPC has been deleted while Section 382 PPC is not attracted in this case, that case of the petitioners is of further inquiry and ultimately he submits that as the present FIR is a counter blast to the civil suit so bail should be granted to Ahmad Raza etc and bail granted to Farman Ali respondent should not be cancelled.
4. Learned Addl. A.G. submits that act committed by the accused persons falls within the ambit of Section 497 (1) Cr.P.C, that possession was never taken by the accused, neither they filed any application for execution of ex-parte decree.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at a great length. Facts of the case are that on 3.8.2006 at about 6.00 a.m. about 70 persons entered into the premises of Educator School situated at Sessions Court Road Gujranwala. The accused on gunpoint made the guards hostage and driver of the school and tied them with ropes and snatched the keys of the School. Out of the above referred persons about 50 persons, who were masons and labourers were asked to stand aside and wait a.m. for the arrival of the construction material where after they were required to raise construction at side. The remaining persons, who were armed with deadly weapon, took the positions on the five gates of the school. At 6.30 a.m. the building material began to be delivered at the school and all the above-referred masons and labourers started raising the wall in the school.
At the time when the school opens the principal arrived and knocked at the doors, who was made to enter the school on gunpoint and the accused snatched her purse and mobile phone, thereafter, who so ever amongst the staff arrived was detained on gun point and their valets were snatched.
After arrival of whole staff, they all were detained in one room on gunpoint. The accused threw out the articles including the computers lying in the office of the school and damaged them. They passed on threats of dire consequences. The accused Farman Ali/respondent wore the uniform of the security guard and presented him as such at the gate. The complainant made a call on. 15 to the police. Whereupon police reached at the spot and arrested 28 persons from the spot, 23 of them were labourers and masons, who have been allowed ball by the learned trial Court. Now the case of Farman Ali and three, others, namely, Ahmad Raza, Tanveer Akhtar and Awais Akhtar is before me. In my considered opinion, the offence committed by Farman Ali respondent is more heinous, then that of his other co-accused, who have filed bail after arrest petition before this Court because he not only came at the spot alongwith his co-accused but he forcibly got the Uniform of security guard and posed himself as such at the gate. Police came there and arrested them at the spot. Section 382 PPC is applicable; one cannot say that it is not applicable. For the just decision of this case, I would like to reproduce Section 382 PPC below:-- "382. Theft after preparation made causing death, but or restraint in order to the committing of the theft. Whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death or hut, or restraint, or fear of death or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine."
The bare perusal of above said section shows that the same is applicable in this case. Offence falls within the ambit of Section 497 (1) Cr.P.C, the petitioners, who have applied for bail after arrest before this Court and the respondent have committed high handedness they had create lawlessness at the spot, they tried to take forcible possession of the School, although according to them they had obtained ex-parte decree in year 1992 but till today they did not file any application for execution of the seine because they knew that they are on the wrong side so these type of accused persons are not entitled to the grant of bail. The result of the above discussion is that, Crl.
Misc: No. 9154/CB/06 filed by Mirza Ijaz Beg petitioner is accepted and the bail granting order dated 9.10.2006 passed by learned Addl: Sessions Judge, Gujranwala in favour of Farman Ali respondent is hereby recalled. As far as, Crl. Misc: No. 8800/B/06 filed, by Ahmad Raza, Tanveer Akhtar and Awais Akhtar for the grant of bail, is concerned, that's dismissed.