Through this petition, petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 485/2009 dated 15.10.2009 registered at Police Station Saddar Kehror Pacca, Lodhran, under sections 506, 440, 337-H(ii), 148 PPC at the instance of Abdul Razaq son = of Muhammad Yar, Complainant/ Respondent No, 2.
2. Briefly allegation according to the prosecution story against the accused/petitioners is that they destroyed the cotton crop of the complainant and extended threats for dire consequence towards the complainant, hence, this FIR.
3. Petitioners applied for their ad-interim pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca, who vide order dated 30.01.2010 refused to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier FIR No, 429/090 was got registered against the present petitioner and others under Sections 430, 431, 452, 436 PPC, subsequently. FIR was cancelled after near about one and half month, this second case is got registered falsely against the petitioners it establishes the mala fide of the complainant: petitioners are quite innocent nothing happened and the whole story is concocted false and frivolous; the occurrence is stated to be happened on 31.08.2009 while the FIR is got registered on 15.10.2009 with unexplained delay of one and half months, as such false implication cannot be ruled out; earlier FIR was cancelled being false and frivolous this case is also false; further submits that vide Police Diary No, 3 dated 07.11.2010 Section 440 PPC was deleted; except Mukhtiar all the co-accused were declared innocent and it was found in the investigation no damage was caused to the crops of the petitioner; offence remains only under Section 406(2) PPC, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned Law Officer half-heartedly opposed the bail petition.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. It is correct that learned trial Court allowed ad-interim pre-arrest bail and the petitioner could not arrange the bail bonds. Learned trial Court dismissed the bail petition on merits as well as on non-submission of bail bonds. Vide order dated 16.02.2010 petitioner was admitted to ad-interim pre-arrest bail they submitted bail bonds through the D.R. (Judi.) of this Court. In the investigation petitioner was declared innocent and Section 440 PPC was deleted vide Police Diary No, 03 dated 07.11.2010. Present 'FIR is got registered after unexplained elay of one and half month, as such, false implication cannot be ruled out. Earlier case was got registered by the same complainant was found false and was cancelled. In this case, petitioners are declared innocent except Mukhtiar. It clearly reveals the ulterior motive and mala fide of the complainant. No empty was recovered from the place of occurrence. The main allegation in the FIR was destroying the cotton crops, which was found false. No useful purpose would be served while sending the petitioner behind the bars for a few days. Mala fide of the petitioner is established that first FIR No, 429/09 against the petitioner and others which was found false and the complainant got this second FIR in which petitioners are declared innocent and the allegation of destroying the crop is found false which is sufficient for establishing the ulterior motive and mala fide of the petitioner. Complainant wants to humiliate and harass the petitioner for ulterior motive.
8. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to petitioners vide order dated 16.02.2010 is hereby confirmed. However, observations made above are of tentative in nature, will not prejudice the case of either side during the trial.