Muhammad Mahar Jillani, petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case FIR No, 320 dated 28.04.2012 offence under Sections 363, 511 and 506-B, PPC registered at Police Station City Chishtian District Bahawalnagar. Precisely, the story as mentioned in the FIR is that the complainant contracted marriage with the petitioner and a minor namely Lareb was born. After getting divorce from the petitioner, she contracted second marriage with one Qari Muhammad Abdullah. On the day of occurrence, the petitioner alongwith his co-accused, armed with weapons, came at the spot, gave slaps and fist blows to the complainant, tore her clothes and attempted to kidnap her minor daughter Lareb.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, contends that no such occurrence took place as mentioned in the FIR and in fact, there is a litigation pending between the petitioner and his ex-wife Mst. Bareera Raza (complainant); that even a petition for custody of minor Lareb was decided by the learned Guardian Judge, Chishtian on 04.01.2012 in favour of the petitioner and the appeal filed by the complainant against that judgment was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Chishtian on 09.04.2012; that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner; that co-accused of the petitioner, who was arrested, has been allowed bail after arrest by the learned lower Court; that in the circumstances, malafide on the part of the complainant for false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out.
3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, opposes this bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner is named in the FIR with specific role; that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused intercepted the complainant, gave her slaps and fist blows, tore her clothes and attempted to kidnap her minor daughter, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail .However, learned DPG confirms that co-accused of the petitioner, who was arrested at the spot, has been allowed bail after arrest by the learned lower Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Admittedly the complainant is the ex-wife of the petitioner and there is litigation pending between the parties. Even a petition for custody of minor Lareb was decided by the learned Guardian judge, Chishtian vide judgment dated 04.01.2012 in favour of the petitioner and the appeal filed by the complainant against that judgment was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Chishtian on 09.04.2012. As confirmed by the learned DPG, co-accused of the petitioner has been allowed bail after arrest by the learned lower Court. In the circumstances, malafide on the part of the complainant for false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. No useful purpose would be served if the petitioner is sent behind the bars.
This petition is, therefore, allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 06.06.2012, is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
5. Before parting' with this order, it is clarified that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and relevant only for the disposal of this bail petition, which shall not influence the learned trial Court in any manner whatsoever.