ALI BAIG, J.---Through the instant bail petitions filed under section 498, Cr.P.C., the petitioners/ accused namely Salah-ud-Din son of Sulaiman and Musa Baig son of Barhamad Shah seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.17/2020 dated 30-06-2020 under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1997 at Police Station Ali Abad Hunza.
2. By this common order , I propose to dispose of both the pre-arrest bail petitions, bearing Cr. Misc. No.139/2020, filed by the petitioner/accused namely Salahuddin, and Cr. Misc. No.144/2020, filed by the petitioner/accused namely Mussa Baig, as both the aforesaid pre-arrest bail petitions have arisen out of the same and one FIR.
3. Precisely , the prosecution case as narrated by the complainant in the FIR is that on the basis of spy information the complainant namely Javed Alam SIP/SHO Police Station Aliabad Hunza obtained search warrant from the Court of competent jurisdiction and conducted a raid at the residential house of accused/ petitioner namely Mussa Baig situated at Karimabad Hunza. On arrival of complainant and his police team, the accused/petitioner namely Salahuddin escaped from the house of petitioner Mussa Baig/scene of occu rrence. Accordingly , the police conducted search of house of the petitioner namely Mussa Baig. During search of the place of occurrence, the police have recovered huge quantity of contraband liquor/wine. Resultantly , police have lodged FIR against the present petitioners/accused under Articles 3/4 of PEW), 1979.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the petitioners/accused had filed pre-a rrest bail petition in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge Hunza for grant of pre-arrest bail which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge Hunza vide bail order dated 09-07-2020, hence this petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioner/accused namely Mussa Baig was not present at the place of occurrence and petitioner/accused namely Salahuddin is resident of Shishkat Gojal. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that both the petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case by police with mala fide intention. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that Karimabad is thickly populated village/ area, but the police have failed to associate independent person from vicinity of the place of occurrence to act as recovery witness and police have violated the mandatory provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. and recovery of contraband liquor/local wine has been doubtful, hence, the petitioners are entitled for grant of pre arrest bail.
6. Conversely , the learned Deputy Advoc ate General vehemently opposed these bail petitions by contending that both the petitioners/accused are directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR and huge quantity of local wine/liquor has been recovered from the house of petitioners/accused namely Mussa Baig and petitioner/accused namely Salahuddin was present at the place of occurrence and escaped from the place of occurrence at the time of raiding of the house of the petitioner/accused Mussa Baig. The petitioner/accused name ly Mussa Baig has been selling local wine/liquor after preparing at his house for the last many months as per spy information which is an offence against society , therefore, both the petitioners/accused are prima facie connected with the alleged offence of moral turpitude as such the petitioners/ accused are not entitled for extra ordinary concession of pre arrest bail.
7. I have given my dispassionate thought to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance I have gone through the record.
8. Admittedly , both the petitioners are directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR. The petitioner/accused namely Salahuddin was present at the place of occurrence and decamped from the house of the petitioner/accused namely . Mussa Baig at the time of conduc ting of raid at his house by police. Huge quantity of local wine/contraband liquor has been recovered from the house of the petitioner/accused namely Mussa Baig in presence of recovery witnesses/police of ficials as police of ficials are as good witnesses as private witnesses.
9. From tentative assessment of material collected by the police during investigation, it appears that both the petitioners are prima facie connected with the alleged of fence charged against them.
10. It is well settled principle of law that grant of pre-arrest bail to an accused is extra ordinary concession which is to be granted where the case against the accused prima facie is false, the involvement of the accused is actuated by malice, the aim of complainant is to humiliate the respectable person/accused and to cause irreparable injury to his reputation and liberty or the case is politically motived which are lacking in the instant case.
11. In my opinion the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners could at the best be taken into consideration in post arrest bail, as the principle for grant of pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail are totally different.
In pre-arrest bail matter , the Court is supposed to examine as to whether the accused has proved mala fide on the part of complainant or prosecution or his false involvement. In the instant case, neither such plea was taken by the petitioners in the bail petition nor proved on the record.
12. Tentative assessment of the material so far brought on record prima facie connect the petitioners/accused with the commission of the of fence and they are not entitled to the extra ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.
13. For what has been discussed above, these pre-arrest bail petitions having no substance and force are hereby dismissed. The SHO Police Station Aliabad is allowed to arrest the petitioners/ accused from outside of the Court premises. Certified true copy of this judgment be placed on the file bearing Cr . Misc. No.144/2020. File.