' Through this single order, I proceed to decide the instant Criminal Miscellaneous No, 2038-B of 2015/BWP, filed by the petitioner namely Muhammad Rafique, seeking his pre-arrest bail, as well as, Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1073-CB of 2015/BWP, filed by the State for cancellation of post arrest bail, granted to Respondent No, 2, namely Muhammad Amir Wattoo, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fort Abbas vide order dated 24.03.2015, as both these petitions have arisen out of the same F.I.R. No, 193/2013 dated 04.08.2013 offences under Sections 353/395/156/148/149, PPC, Police Station Maroot, District Bahawalnagar.
2. As per brief facts of the present case, on 03.08.2013, at about 5.30 p.m., the complainant namely Muhammad Younis, Sub-Division Officer (Operation), Sub-Division Fort Abbas along with other officials of the department of MEPCO (Multan Electric Power Company) was going towards Chak No, 337/HR. Muhammad Rafique, petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 2038-B of 2015/BWP, while armed with pistol and Muhammad Amir Wattoo, Respondent No, 2, in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1073-CB of 2015/BWP, while armed with pistol along with their other co-accused, who were also armed with different weapons, intercepted the complainant party and at gun point, looted five safety gloves, ten pliers, five screwdrivers and five testers from the complainant party. They also snatched one mobile phone and cash amount of Rs, 14,000/-, along with identity card from Ansar Hussain, who was driver of the complainant, two mobile phones and cash amount of Rs, 7000/-, official card and a diary was snatched from the complainant, one mobile phone and cash amount of Rs, 5000/- were snatched from Farhat Abbas LM-II. The accused persons also beat the complainant party and extended threats of life to them.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. First of all I take up the case of Muhammad Rafique, petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 2038-B of 2015/BWP. The aforementioned petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. The occurrence in this case took place in the broad-day-light and as such there is no chance of any mistaken identification of the said petitioner. It was alleged in the F.I.R that the petitioner Muhammad Rafique along with his co-accused looted different articles, cash amount and mobile phones from complainant party; at pistol point and recovery of pistol and looted articles/cash is still to be effected from the possession of the petitioner. It is also evident from the perusal of the record that F.I.R was lodged on 04.08.2013 and the petitioner remained absconder in this case for a period of more than two years. The petitioner is unable to establish any mala fide on the part of the complainant, who is a government servant, for his false involvement in the instant case. The offence under Section 395, PPC, falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. It is held in the case of `Rana Muhammad Arshad Vs. Muhammad Rafique and another" (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427) that grant of pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary relief to be granted only in extra ordinary circumstances. As no extra ordinary circumstance has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, therefore, this petition, bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No, 2038-B of 2015/BWP, filed by Muhammad Rafique (petitioner), seeking his pre-arrest bail, is hereby dismissed and the interim pre-arrest bail, granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 16.09.2015, is hereby recalled.
5. Now I take up Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1073-CB of 2015/BWP, filed by the State for cancellation of post arrest bail, granted to Muhammad Amir Wattoo (Respondent No, 2) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fort Abbas vide order dated 24.03.2015. It is argued by the learned APG that the accused Muhammad Amir Wattoo (Respondent No, 2) is a notorious criminal, who is involved in different criminal cases of heinous nature. The occurrence of the present case, occurred due to the reason that Respondent No, 2 was also involved in commission of theft of electricity and was responsible for causing loss of millions of rupees to the Government Exchequer. Learned APG has also placed on the record a list of criminal cases, registered against the above mentioned respondent, which shows that eleven different criminal cases have so far been registered against the said respondent, which were registered in the years 2010, 2013, 2014 and 2015 but in my humble view, mere involvement of the above mentioned respondent in some criminal cases by itself is not sufficient to cancel his bail, however, other aspects of the case are taken into consideration for decision of the instant petition for cancellation of bail. I have noted that the aforementioned respondent is specifically nominated in the F.I.R with the allegation that he while armed with a pistol along with his co-accused, looted different articles and cash amount from the complainant party. Two safety belts, six safety gloves, two pliers, two screwdrivers and two testers, which were looted during the occurrence have been recovered from the possession of Respondent No, 2, during his physical remand. A pistol, which was used by the above mentioned respondent during the occurrence, has also been recovered from the possession of said respondent (Respondent No, 2), which further corroborates the allegations levelled against the said respondent by the prosecution. The complainant Muhammad Younis and other P.Ws are government officials in the department of MEPCO (Multan Electric Power Company) and they have absolutely no ill will or malice against the accused Muhammad Amir Wattoo (Respondent No, 2) to falsely implicate him in this case. This case was registered on 04.08.2013 and thereafter Respondent No, 2, remained absconder for a period of more than two years. The offence under Section 395, PPC falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Keeping in view all the above facts, the aforementioned respondent was not entitled to the relief of bail.
6. I have also noted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fort Abbas vide order dated 24.03.2015, granted bail to Respondent No, 2, on the ground that the offence under Section 395, PPC is not attracted in this case but in my humble view the allegation of looting different articles, mobile phones and cash amounts etc was' leveled against Respondent No, 2 and his co-accused, therefore, ingredients of Section 395, PPC are fully attracted in this case. Second reason for grant of bail to Respondent No, 2, as given in the above-mentioned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fort Abbas is that notice was issued to the complainant of the instant case but the complainant did not turn up to oppose the bail petition but it is note worthy that it was not mentioned in the above mentioned bail granting order that notice was served upon the complainant and it is only mentioned therein that the notice was issued to the complainant.
Learned counsel for MEPCO (Multan Electric Power Company) is present in the Court, who has vehemently supported this petition and prayed for cancellation of bail granted to the above mentioned respondent. Another reason given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fort Abbas for grant of bail to Respondent No, 2, was that admittedly the said respondent was not a habitual offender and he did not belong to any group of davits but as mentioned earlier, learned APG has placed on the record, a list, prepared by the local police, according to which, Respondent No, 2 is involved in as many as eleven criminal cases, which shows that the above mentioned reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fort Abbas, is against the record.
7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for Respondent No, 2 has placed reliance on the judgments reported as "Muhammad Ramzan Vs. Zafar Ullah and another" (1986 SCM R 1380) and "Muzaffar 'Iqbal Vs. Muhammad Imran Aziz and others" (2004 SCM R 231), wherein it was held that once a bail is granted to an accused by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then very strong and exceptional grounds are required to cancel the bail but the facts of the judgments cited by learned counsel for Respondent No, 2 are distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
8. In the light of above discussion, Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1073-CB of 2015/BWP, filed by the State for cancellation of post arrest bail, granted to Respondent No, 2 namely Muhammad Amir Wattoo is hereby accepted, bail granting order dated 24.03.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fort Abbas is hereby recalled and bail granted to Respondent No, 2 is hereby cancelled.
10. It is however clarified that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and shall cause no prejudice to the case of either party at the time of final adjudication of the case before the learned trial Court.