Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
PLJ 2010 Cr.C. (Lahore) 236

FIDA HUSSAIN vs STATE and others

CitationPLJ 2010 Cr.C. (Lahore) 236
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Crl. Misc. No, 1942-B of 2009
Date2009-11-11
Judge(s)Sardar Tariq Masood
ResultBail confirmed

ORDER

Fida Hussain petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case FIR No, 408 dated 18.09.2009 registered under Sections 447/511/379/506 PPC at Police Station Saddar District Rahimyar Khan.

2. Briefly the prosecution story mentioned in the FIR is that the petitioner alongwith others trespassed into the land of the complainant threw his bricks outside and threatened to occupy the land of the complainant and stolen away the bricks.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that offence under Section 379 PPC has been deleted by the police and Section 506 PPC is not made out and remaining sections are bailable.

Further contends that all the accused are allowed bail after arrest by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 17.10.2009 and the case of the petitioner is at par with that of his co-accused and no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars.

4. Learned Addl.P.G. for the State opposed the grant of bail by arguing that although Section 379 PPC has been deleted but Section 506 PPC is made out.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. Co-accused of the petitioner has been allowed bail after arrest and during their physical remand, nothing was recovered and no useful purpose was likely to be served if the bail of the petitioner is not confirmed because after arrest, he could again be allowed bail on the ground that similarly placed other accused were already on bail. In the cases of Muhammad Ramzan vs. Zafar Ullah and another (1986 SCM R 1380) and Shafqat Hussain vs. The State (2007 YLR 1159), it was observed by the Courts that when bail application of the co-accused having one and the same role was allowed then it can also be given the benefit of such bail on the ground of consistency even at the stage of bail before arrest.

So for Section 506 PPC is concerned, threat simplicitor did not constitute criminal intimidation within the definition of Section 503 PPC, unless it was to cause that person to do any act which he was not B legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person was legally bound to do.

In the present case, no such situation is mentioned rather only allegation {{URUD TEXT}} From this sentence, offence criminal intimidation within the definition of Section 503 PPC is not made out and person cannot be punished under Section 506 PPC. In the case of Syed Ali Asghar Shah vs. The State (1998 P.Cr.L.J. 270), bail before arrest was confirmed and the learned Judge observed:-- "I am of the view that the allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused that he:-- {{URUD TEXT}} accepted at its face value, no case punishable under Section 506 PPC is made out and that threat simplicitor is not sufficient to constitute criminal intimidation within the definition of Section 503 PPC, unless it is to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally bound to do, which is not in the instant case. The mere fact that although the allegation levelled in the FIR did not constitute offence punishable under Section 506 PPC yet. police registered the case, under this section; obviously to arrest him, indicates mala fide on the part of the police."

Likewise, in the case of Gohar Javed vs. State and another (PLJ 2007 Lahore 122), FIR under Sections 506/148/149 PPC was quashed by the learned Judge by observing:-- "There was a simple threat which could not be considered to have caused any alarm to informant because no such words depicting such consequences were found in FIR--Not a single word or sentence shows that any threat was hurled or informant was directed to do any unlawful act, or to omit to do an act which the informant was entitled to do legally--Third condition provided for applicability of 5.506 PPC is missing."

7. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (Rs, Fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch