Through this petition, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 197/2009 dated 09.10.2009 registered with Police Station Umer Kot, District Rajanpur, under Sections 365, J 48, 149 PPC on the complaint of Hussain Bukhsh, Respondent No, 2, complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that they formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object abducted Ghulam Rasool, hence, this case.
3. Petitioner applied for his pre-arrest before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,. Rojhan, who vide order dated 06.11.2009 dismissed the same. Thereafter, petitioner applied for his pre-arrest bail before this Court through Crl. Misc No, 4471-B-2009 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.12.2009.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that alleged abductee, Ghulam Rasool was not recovered from the petitioner; main accused, Ramzan and Din Muhammad were allowed pre- arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rojhan; District Rajanpur, the role attributed to Ramzan was that after caught hold of Ghulam Rasool handed over the same to Shah Ghulam; earlier bail petition of the petitioner bearing Crl. Misc.. No, 4471-B-2909 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.12.2009; the complainant party tried to abduct the petitioner with regard to that FIR No, 42/10 was got registered on 05.03.2010 against the complainant party; further contend that petitioner is an owner of land measuring 18 Acres of lands the complainant falsely claimed that he cultivated the same with the help of local MPA wants to forcible possession of land in dispute as the petitioner is resisting on account of that local MPA falsely got registered with mala fide intention the above mentioned case against the petitioner and others; further contends that case of petitioner is at better footing than the case of co-accused. Ramzan and Din Muhammad, whom, trial Court allowed pre-arrest bail petitioner is also entitled for the same relief, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Learned DDPP vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that petitioner is nominated in the case; petitioner could not pointed out any ulterior motive or mala fide of the police or the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner; consideration for grant of post-arrest bail and pre- arrest bail are entirely different; petitioner could not establish any mala fide of the complainant or the police for registration of case; according to the. dictum laid down in case titled as Murad Khan vs. Fazal-e-Subhan (PLD 1983 SC 82), basic ingredients for grant of pre-arrest bail, i,e, mala fide and ulterior motive is missing therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have heard the learned, counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. Co-accused, namely, Ramzan and Din Muhammad were allowed bail by trial Court on 16.11.2009 whom main role of abduction is attributed that they caught hold of Ghulam Sarwar and handed over the same to Shah Ghulam etc. Ghulam Rasool alleged abductee was not recovered from the petitioner. There is one day unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. On 23.12.2009 when the petitioner was coming to attend this Court in Crl. Misc. No, 4471-B-09. Petitioner was abducted by the complainant party and confined at some unknown place on account of which petitioner's previous bail petition was withdrawn by this Court. With regard to such incident petitioner's wife got registered case FIR No, 42/2010. There is a dispute between the complainant and the petitioner with regard to 18 Acres of land which is owned by the petitioner and is cultivated by the petitioner. The complainant wants to take forcible possession of the said land with the help of the local MPA.
Petitioner is resisting the same and just to pressurize the petitioner to relinquish his right of possession from land in dispute. The said case is got registered against the petitioner and others.
Alleged abductee, namely, Ghulam Rasodl was never recovered from the petitioner he was recovered from two other co-accused, namely, Ramzan and Din Muhammad, whom, pre-arrest bail was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 06.11.2009. The case of the petitioner is at better footing than the co-accused, namely, Ramzan and Din Muhammad.
Keeping in view the principle of consistency the present petitioner is entitled for the same relief.
8. In view of the above reasons, ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 19.04.2010 is hereby confirmed. However, observations made above are tentative in nature, will not prejudice the case of either side.