MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---This petition bearing No,Cr. Misc. No,212 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner Mehboob Alam as he has been booked for the offences under section 186/353/506(11), P.P.C. vide FIR No,56/16 registered at Police Station City Gahkuch.
2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR is that one Mir Ghayas Khan, who is posted in PWD as Executive Engineer B & R Division, District Ghizer was busy in his office, while present petitioner entered into his office and demanded a cheque pertaining to one Imran Khan. The complainant refused to fulfill his demand. The petitioner became infuriated and used filthy language against the complainant and extended threats of dire consequences to the complainant. Some persons, whose names finds mentioned in the FIR intervened and the petitioner left the office by extending threats of dire consequences.
3. After registration of FIR the petitioner due to winter vacations has approached this Court directly, although the vacation Sessions Judge is available at District HQ Gilgit. The application for bail before arrest was placed before me at 1530 hours on 31.12.2016 in my Chamber and on inquiry it was informed that the learned duty Sessions Judge has left the Court. The petitioner was admitted to pre-arrest bail and notices were issued to SHO Police Station Gahkuch and the complainant, who both are present in compliance of the order of this Court dated 31.12.2016 along with their learned counsel Messrs Raja Shakeel Ahmad and Mr. Attaullah Advocates.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is false and the petitioner has been involved maliciously due to mala fidies of complainant, who has created his own favourite group of some contractors, while the petitioner and some other have a parallel group to safe guard their interests, being outsider. The learned counsel further submitted that in fact the petitioner was thrashed by the party men of the complainant and the petitioner submitted an application for registration of case to the SHO Police Station Gahkuch, who did not chalk the FIR of the petitioner and being in league with the complainant due to his social status, the SHO informed the complainant and complainant as a counterblast lodged the instant FIR against the petitioner, which is sheer abuse of authority by the SHO and the complainant. The learned counsel submitted that almost all the sections are bailable, while section 506(ii) is not attracted and insertion of section 506(ii), itself is a proof of mala fidies of the police and the complainant.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for complainant Raja Shakeel Ahmad refuted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the petitioner is charged in promptly lodged FIR, with a specific allegation of hurling abuses and filthy language and he also violated the sanctity of the office of Executive Engineer and extended threats of dire consequences.
The learned counsel further contended that bail before arrest is an extra ordinary concession which is not extended to such type of criminals, who have no respect for the Government institutions.
6. The learned A.A.G. adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and added that no mala fidies have been pointed out by the petitioner and if the concession of pre-arrest bail is extended in such like cases, it will encourage the like minded people.
7. Heard the parties at length and perused the record. It is not denied that almost all the sections imposed in the FIR A are. bailable except section 506(ii), P.P.C., insertion of which requires further inquiry. The SHO confirmed that the petitioner submitted an application for registration of FIR, but the same was not registered as the said application was sent to Police Station through a third person. The explanation of SHO is vague and does not stand to reasons. The SHO was bound to register an FIR on the complaint of petitioner if a cognizable offence was made out from the contents of application so submitted. The act of SHO is not above board and is highly depreciated.
8. The contents of FIR does not disclose an offence under section 506(ii), P.P.C. and insertion, thereof seems to be a mala fide on the part of local police just to make the offence heinous.
Although bail before arrest is an extra ordinary concession, which is only extending in very genuine and extra ordinary circumstances, when the element of mala fide is apparent on record. When the Court entertain a doubt that the allegations leveled in the FIR does not appeal to a prudent mind, and there has been some exaggeration of facts, the facility of pre-arrest bail is extended, however, there are no universal rules to be followed blindly and each and every criminal case is decided according to its own peculiar circumstances and merits.
9. The result of above discussion is that the pre-arrest bail allowed to the petitioner on 31.12.2016 is confirmed on the same terms and conditions and the instant petition is disposed of accordingly.