' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C., Mst. Zahoor Fatima petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,188, dated 16-7-2009, registered under sections 452, 380, 506, 171, 395, 397, 148 and 149, P.P.C. At Police Station City Chichawatni, District Sahiwal on the application of Javed Akhtar complainant.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioner as per contents of the F.I.R. Is that Javed Akhtar complainant used to deal as commission agent in Sabzi Mandi Chichawatni. On 12-7-2009 at about 9-00 a.m. The complainant was present at his residence, which was adjacent to Sabzi Mandi. After some time, on the ringing of bell, the complainant opened the door and saw that Imtiaz alias Taji armed with rifle, Farah Deeba, Mst. Fatima alias Chanda petitioner and seven unknown persons armed with fire-arm weapons, who could be identified on confrontation came there. Out of the unknown persons two persons were wearing police uniform. .On opening the door, they entered in the house of the complainant forcibly. Imtiaz alias Taji on pointing out rifle straight towards the complainant threatened him that if he made a noise he would be fired at. On the resistance of the complainant, Imtiaz alias Taji gave butt blow of rifle hitting the right side of his head. The persons wearing police uniform also inflicted butt blow of gun on the left side of his head.
Likewise, the remaining accused also gave butt blows with rifles. During this, the accused persons had taken away laptop computer and mobile set Nokia N73 with them forcibly and they also took away Rs,1,500 from the pocket of the complainant along with colour photocopy'of I.D. Card. On raising hue and cry, Muhammad Younas brother of the complainant Haji Muhammad Sarwar came at the shop and on seeing them coming, the accused persons succeeded in fleeing away in a white colour Corolla car which was unnumbered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the background for involvement of the petitioner in the present case is that the petitioner was married with Shahid Javed son of the complainant on 25-7-2005 and out of the wedlock a female child namely Mst. Aaiqat Shahid was born on 10-6-2006. On 6-3-2006, divorce between the petitioner and Shahid Javed son of the complainant took place and the matter was adjudicated upon by the learned Guardian Judge and order was passed in favour of the petitioner for the custody of the minor said minor daughter namely Mst. Aaiqat Shahid. On 4-7-2009, the complainant along with other persons had abducted daughter of the petitioner whereupon the petitioner filed habeas corpus petition on 13-7-2009 before the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal which was disposed of with the direction to the S.H.O.
To produce the daughter of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No,634/H of 2009 which was disposed of on 12-8-2009 as only after the efforts of the D.P.O.
Concerned, Mst. Aaiqat Shahid aged three years was produced before the Court and her custody was handed over to the petitioner being mother having the first right of Hizanat. It is contended that during the pendency of the habeas corpus petition, on an application moved by the complainant under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Present case has been got lodged with mala fide intention and ulterior motives in order to pressurize the petitioner to hand over custody of the minor to her in-laws. It is further contended that the local police has joined hands with the complainant and one relative of the petitioner had gone to meet his grandmother at Chichawatni, who was arrested by the S.H.O. Police Station City Chichawatni and habeas corpus petition was filed in this Court on 20-8-2009 which came up for hearing on 21-82009 and a bailiff was deputed to recover the alleged detenu, but according to Sajjid Hussain Bukhari, S.-I./S.H.O. The alleged detenu had been arrested on 21-8-2009 at 8-10 a.m. Under section 54, Cr.P.C. Vide Rapat No,5 dated 21-8-2009 by Liaqat Ali S.-I. In case F.I.R. No,198, dated 22-7-2009, registered under section 392, P.P.C. At Police Station City Chichawatni, Sahiwal; that keeping in view the mala fide on the part of the local police and interim bail was granted to him on 23-8-2009. It is also claimed that present Investigating Officer namely Liaqat Ali, S.-I. Had also arrested Mst. Bushra sister of the petitioner aged about 17 years, kept her at a private place, who is present in Court having been released after 12 days and she was undressed/naked in the presence of certain people by Liaqat Ali, S.-I. And he used to torture her the marks of violence whereof can be seen on her whole body. It is contended that the highhandedness and collusiveness of the police with the complainant is crystal clear is that the sister of the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., but only for humiliation she was nominated in the supplementary statement. It is also contended that originally F.I.R. Was got recorded under sections 380/452/171/506/148/149, P.P.C. But subsequently, sections 395 and 397, P.P.C. Have been added by the local police with ulterior motive and in fact the registration of the case was with mala fide intention and ulterior motive in order to snatch the minor daughter namely Mst. Aaiqat Shahid from the petitioner; that the story is totally false and frivolous and the local police is in league with the complainant party; that the petitioner is innocent, who is also a young girl and may be allowed pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant opposes this bail application on the ground that the incident had taken place on 12-7-2009 and he was medically examined on the said date; that the complainant moved for addition of sections 395 and 397, P.P.C. On which the said sections have been added by the police; that marriage was contracted by the son of the complainant with the petitioner with his free will and consent and he has turned them out of the house; that son of the complainant whenever visits Pakistan, he is received by the petitioner party and the complainant came to know after the departure of his son; that recovery of the minor daughter was manoeuvred by the petitioner in order to pressurize complainant to withdraw the present criminal case against her and the said story was concocted by the petitioner; that there are some hardened criminals in the present case, who were joined by the petitioner to commit robbery with the complainant; that conduct of the petitioner also disentitles her for the grant of bail as the application moved by her has been dismissed for non-prosecution by the Court of first instance; that even the petitioner has not joined the, investigation; that scope of bail before arrest is limited; that medical report shows that the complainant had received the injuries during the incident and the petitioner is not entitled for the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. In reply to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not appear before the Court of first instance as on the same day she had to appear before this Court in connection with the hearing of habeas corpus petition filed for the recovery of her relative namely Naeem Abdullah, who was illegally detained by the local police and even otherwise, the petitioner did not expect any fair play from the police while appearing in the Court of first instance, hence, the non-appearance of the petitioner on the said date was not intentional.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents attached with this petition. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner was married with Shahid Javed son of the complainant and out of their wedlock a minor daughter namely Mst. Aaitak aged about three years was born and the litigation is going on between the parties over the dispute of her custody. The petitioner claims that a decree had been passed in her favour to keep the said child with her, but on 4-7-2009 the complainant along with others had abducted daughter of the petitioner and the petitioner was constrained to file habeas corpus petition on 13-7-2009 before the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal whereupon the S. H.O. Was directed to produce the minor daughter of the petitioner but he failed to produce her in the Court and the said petition was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal. Then the petitioner filed Writ Petition No,6340/H of 2009 before this Court and even at the initial stage the police failed to produce/recover her and this Court was constrained to direct the D.P.O. For the recovery of the daughter of the petitioner. On 12-7-2009, daughter of the petitioner was produced in this Court and she was handed over to the petitioner. The present case has been got registered against the petitioner and other relatives on 16-7-2009 during the pendency of the habeas corpus petition for the recovery of her daughter aged about 3 years which was filed on 13-7-2009. The petitioner also filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,1172/H of 2009 in which complainant along with his son Shahid Javed and others were also arrayed as respondents party in the said petition with the claim that Naeem Abdullah, a relative of the petitioner had been illegally detained by the S.H.O. Police Station City Chicha Watni District Sahiwal since 16-8-2009 at 9-00 a.m. And the factum of marriage between the petitioner and Shahid Javed son of the complainant was duly incorporated in paras.
Nos.2, 3 and 4 of the said habeas petition whereupon this Court deputed the bailiff to recover the said detenu, who submitted his report, according to which on the search of the Police Station Naeem Abdullah detenu was found to have been confined in police lock-up at 6-55 p.m. On 21-8- 2009 and on the inquiry of the bailiff, the alleged detenu Naeem Abdullah stated that he had been arrested by the police on 16-8-2009 from the house of his cousin situated at Chichawatni and he was not produced before any Court of law. He also explained that police had snatched his mobile phone Nokia 1200 at the time of arrest. On the other hand, Sajjid Hussain Bukhari, S.-I./S.H.O. Stated before the bailiff that the alleged detenu had been arrested on 21-8-2009 at 8-10 a.m. Under section 54, Cr.P.C. Vide Rappat No,5 dated 21-8-2009 by Liaqat Ali Sub-Inspector in case F.I.R. No,198 of 2009 dated 22-7-2009 under section 392, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station City Chichawatni, Sahiwal and it was admitted by the S.H.O. That, the alleged detenu was not nominated accused in the F.I.R. The bailiff also pointed out to the S.H.O. That present habeas petition had been filed on 20- 8-2009 and it came up for hearing on 21-8-2009, when this Court deputed a bailiff. The bailiff also pointed out to the S.H.O. That present habeas petition had been on 20-8-2009 and it came up for hearing on 21-8-2009, when vide orders of this Court he was deputed as bailiff. Then if the alleged detenu had been arrested on 21-8-2009 at 8-10 a.m. How the petition could be filed a day before his arrest. This Court finally came to the conclusion that the S.H.O. Was not making truthful statement and he was a liar. Noticing the above highhandedness of the S.H.O. And as the said detenu was not a nominated accused, he was granted ad interim pre-arrest bail and D.P.O., Sahiwal was directed to entrust the investigation of the said F.I.R. Against the alleged detenu to some senior Police officer not below the rank of D.S.P. Other than the S.D.P.O. The D.P.O. Was also directed to hold an inquiry into the matter and if the allegations levelled by the petitioner were found correct action on the criminal as well as departmental side was to be taken against all the delinquent police officials including their removal from the said police station,
7. In the above circumstances, I find that conduct of the police in the present case is not above the board and mala fides of the police are crystal clear that they being in league with the local police are involving the relatives of the petitioners, who were even not nominated in the present case who were being detained in illegal confinement, which has been proved during the hearing of the said habeas petition. Even otherwise, the allegation has been levelled that Liaqat Ali, S.-I. Had also illegally detained younger sister of the petitioner namely Mst. Bushra Bibi aged about 17 years and she was claimed to have been confined in a private room at Lahore where she was undressed in the presence of certain people by said Liaqat Ali, S.-I. In the state of intoxication/liquor and she was also given severe beating, who was then involved in the present case on the supplementary statement of the complainant. The mala fide of the complainant is crystal clear that he has not only nominated the petitioner his real daughter-in-law who has been divorced by his son along with her mother in the present case and subsequently he got involved younger sister of the petitioner and their cousin in the present case who were not nominated in the F.I.R. But introduced their names in the supplementary statement in order to cover up their illegal detention. Similarly, highhandedness of the police is also crystal clear and in such facts and circumstances possibility of false implication of the petitioner in the present case cannot be ruled out. Bail before arrest is meant to protect the innocent citizens if they are found to have been involved with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. It is a fit case to exercise extraordinary relief in favour of the petitioner. Hence, this application is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 2-9-2009 is hereby confirmed subject to her furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.
8. Before parting with this order, keeping in view the highhandedness and the conduct of the police as pointed out above, I am constrained to direct the Inspector-General of Police Punjab, Lahore to hold an inquiry into the allegations levelled against the local police of Police Station City Chichawatni and take action on the criminal as well departmental side against all the delinquent police officials. The I.-G. Shall also take action against Liaqat Ali, S.-I. And all the other officials who were alleged to have illegally detained Mst. Bushra younger sister of the petitioner and shall ensure that said Liaqat Ali is transferred from the said police station and kept at the Police Lines till the finalization of the said inquiry so that he may not put pressure upon the witnesses. Moreover, the investigation of this case be also transferred to some senior Police Officer not below the rank of S.P.
Who shall conduct the investigation of the present case by joining all the concerned and unearth the true facts. The report of the action so taken by the I.G.P. Shall be submitted through the Deputy Registrar (J.) of this Court within a month after the receipt of this order. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.