By filing instant petition under Section 498, Cr.P.C., the petitioners. namely Muhammad Sheraz, Sajjad Hussain, Nasir Abbas and Muhammad Nawaz @ Ijaz Babar, seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 270/2017, dated 9.10.2017, under Sections 452, 506, 379, 148/149, PPC, registered with the Police Station B-Division, District D.G Khan.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case as reported by the complainant are that he had been performing his duties as SDO WAPDA while he got registered a case FIR No, 204/2017 under Section 462(i), PPC, Police Station Saddar as the petitioners were found having committed theft of the electricity, however, on 9.10.2017 at 08:00 P.M., the petitioners carrying fire-arms and bricks along with their co- accused made an assault on house of the complainant and when Fayyaz Ahmad, brother of the complainant made an attempt to stop them, the petitioner Nasir Abbas advanced threats to murder him on pistol point, whereupon, the complainant and his brother ran to save their lives and entered into their house, however, the petitioners also entered into his house, dragged the complainant from, his house in order to abduct him and also snatched mobile phone and an amount of Rs, 15000/- from him.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Although the petitioners are nominated in a promptly lodged FIR but the fact remains that there is no MLC of the complainant and his brother available on the file in support of contents of the FIR.
Moreover, attraction of Sections 452 & 379, PPC is necessarily a matter of further inquiry and the same would be determined after having recourse to the evidence before the learned trial Court.
There is nowhere mentioned in the FIR that what loss is caused by. the petitioners with their respective weapons to the house of the complainant, meaning thereby, there is chances of false implication of the petitioners.
5. As far as the matter of vicarious liability, it would be seen at the time of trial after recording the evidence. Guidance is sought from Muhammad Azeem and others v. the State and others (2015 YLR 2441) and Munawar v. The State (1981 SCM R 1092).
6. The above facts leads me to draw an inference that prima facie, the prosecution has no sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioners with the commission of alleged offence and chances of petitioners' false implication with deliberation after consultation cannot be ruled out.
7. It is settled law if accused has a good case for post arrest bail, the plea of the complainant to send them behind the bars for few days by dismissing their application for pre-arrest bail was held to be ludicrous. Case law is cited upon "Muhammad Aslam v. The State" (2000 YLR 1314) and "Nazar Muhammad and 2 others v. The State" (2012 PCr.LJ 430). As per dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another" (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427), it is held that pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary relief to be granted only in extraordinary situations to protect innocent persons against victimization through abuse of law for ulterior motive. Needless to mention here that object of pre-arrest bail is to protect the innocent persons from harassment, humiliation and incarceration at the hands of police.
8. For the above reasons, this petition is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.