This is an application of Muhammad Sardar and Muhammad Ismail alias Ranjah seeking bail before arrest in a case under section 380/342/452 448/148/149 of Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioners moved an application for bail before arrest before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur who, in the first instance granted them interim bail, but rejected their application on the 30th of May, 1974. I admitted the petition to hearing because the observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, viz.: "The I. O states that the petitioners have not joined the Police investigations" was factually incorrect.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the case is the outcome of political emulation in Kasur and that it was bolstered up at the instance of Mr. Muhammad Yaqub Mann. There is nothing on record to substantiate this allegation. I, therefore, cannot give any credence whatsoever to it at this stage.
3. The F. I. R. Was recorded at the instance of Nawab Ali, on the 6th of May, 1974 wherein he inter alia alleged that he was a tenant of one Allah Ditta who wanted to have the rent enhanced but since he did not agree he started sending the rent to him through money orders; that about fifteen days before the date of occurrence Allah Ditta, in the company of Muhammad Aslam and the two petitioners, Sardar and Muhammad Ismail alias Ranjah, came to his shop and asked him that he should resist from sending the rent amount through money orders ; that in case of his failure to comply with their demand, they threatened him with dire consequences ; that on the 6th of May, 1974, Allah Ditta, the landlord, accompanied by the petitioners, Muhammad Aslam, Faqir Shah and two other persons whom he could not name but could identify, entered his shop ;that Allah Ditta, Sardar and Muhammad Aslam were armed with revolvers that Muhammad Aslam took away Rs.
2,000.00 from his cash-box and the petitioners, Sardar and Ranjab filled sacks with shoes and that so did the other accused and left that place. Besides the fact that the petitioners are mentioned in the F. I. R. Specific role has been ascribed to each of the two. 1t is an incident of the early part of evening, i.e. At 7-30 p.m. The application before me is for bail before arrest. It has not been shown to me that the complainant Nawab Ali was in any way interested against the petitioners or had any motive to involve them falsely.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that they were not present and have produced some witnesses before the Investigating Officer to prove their alibi. The question here is for bail before arrest, and it is in very exceptional circumstances that the concession is granted.
The allegation against them is that they have committed theft. Therefore, the question of recovery is also involved. I see no justification to admit the petitioners to bail, particularly when no motive is attributed to the complainant to involve them in a false case. The petition is dismissed accordingly.
They are on interim bail. They should surrender immediately.
5. I would, however, like to make it clear that the considerations for bail before arrest are quite different from those which may be taken into account after a person is arrested. If the petitioners, after they have surrendered, move an application before the learned trial Magistrate, he shall dispose of the same on merits uninfluenced by the fact that their application for bail has been rejected by me.