' This is an application for grant of pre-arrest bail moved on behalf of Sh. Muzaffar Rashid, Inspector of District Police Vehari, in a case registered against him at Police Station Vehari on 5-3-1992 on application of Mst. Bushra, complainant, under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and section 452, P.P.C. The complainant stated therein that she lives in College Town. On 4-3-1992 at 10 p.m., somebody knocked at her door. As soon as she opened the door, Sh. Muzaffar Hussain, petitioner herein, came in and forcibly committed Zina with her. She raised alarm which attracted Rana Nisar Ahmad, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Afzal, Doctor Khalid, Master Ghazanfar and Saifullah P.Ws., her Mohalladars, whereupon the petitioner decamped from the scene by scaling over the wall, leaving his Yamaha motor-cycle behind. A little later he came back in the company of Akbar Ali Wasli and by making requests to the Mohalladars took away his motor-cycle.
2. The petitioner moved the instant petition direct in this Court saying that Administration at Vehari had turned hostile to him at the instance of Mr. Akbar Ali Bhatti, M.N.A., his arch enemy, and the Sessions Court premises had been cordoned in a way that it was not possible for him to approach that Court for making bail application. The instant petition was, therefore, entertained here. The matter has come up before me for final hearing today.
3. It is contended that the case is false and it was registered for mala fide considerations at the instance of Akbar Ali Bhatti, M.NA., whom the petitioner had not obliged on many occasions, therefore, he launched a campaign of vilification against him. He held public meetings and took out processions also which raised slogans gainst him and the Superintendent of Police, Vehari, demanding their transfer, but could not succeed. Now he has put up Mst. Bushra as complainant who too is annoyed with him because her husband Khalid Mahmood, her husband's brother Tariq Mahmood, her uncle Muhammad Sohail and her landlord Iqbal, a drug baron, have been challaned by the petitioner in numerous cases of narcotic dealings. Mst. Bushra, complainant, it is submitted, is a woman of evil repute. She was complained by her Mohalladars at the police station so she had shifted her residence from there. Further submitted that the petitioner is fairly senior in his cadre and is due for promotion very soon and that his departmental rivals have also joined hands with them to grind their own axe. Next submitted that the petitioner does not own any Yamaha motor-cycle and no such vehicle is registered in his name either. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition saying that the allegations made in F.I.R. Are very serious; and that the witnesses named in the F.I.R. Have supported the prosecution story, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. D.S.P. Abdul Hafeez, the investigating officer, stated that the petitioner has not joined the investigation after 21-3-1992. He, however, admitted that the petitioner having appeared before him produced copies of numerous F.I.Rs, to show his enmity with the complainant. Further submitted that the petitioner promised to produce Yamaha motor-cycle which he has not done.
The petitioner has denied to have made such a promise.
5. I have considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not denied that Khalid Mahmood is husband of the complainant, Tariq Mahmood is brother of Khalid Mahmood and Muhammad Sohail is her uncle. All of them have been challaned in numerous cases under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. Khalid Mahmood is challaned in F.I.Rs, Nos.106/91, 109/91, 122/91, 153/91 and 154/91; Tariq Mahmood is challaned in cases, F.I.R.
Nos.25/91 and 319/91 and Muhammad Sohail is challaned in case F.I.R. No,321/91; Iqbal the landlord of the complainant and the employer of her husband etc., was raided by Mr. Afzal Shaheen, Magistrate and the petitioner on 12-2-1992, recovered from him heroin, unlicensed arms, etc., and registered three different cases against him vide F.I.R. No,34/91, dated 12-2-1991, under sections 3 and 6 of the Public Gambling Act (III of 1867); F.I.R. No,38/91, dated 12-2-1991, under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965); and F.I.R. No,40/91, dated 12-2-1991, under sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (P.O. No,IV of 1979). Report No,8, dated 8-10-1991, recorded in daily diary of the police station, shows that Mohalladars of Mst. Bushra dubbed her as bad character. Two letters, dated 10-2-1991-and 3-4-1991, and one letter, dated nil, signed and stamped by Akbar Ali Bhatti, M.N.A. And addressed to the petitioner soliciting his favour of the chit bearers which were not honoured by the petitioner. Two reports of Security Branch of S.P. Office, Vehari, dated 16-1-1992, are produced which show that in a public meeting/procession organized by Akbar Ali Bhatti slogans were raised against the petitioner demanding his transfer.
6. Leaving apart that there are complaints against chastity and character of Mst. Bushra complainant it is hard to believe that the Mohalladars who gathered on the alarm of the complainant and secured so-called motor-cycle of the petitioner would return the motor-cycle to the petitioner when they intended to get a case registered against him. According to the D.S.P., nobody gave him registration number of that motor-cycle till today. Contrarily, Akbar All Wasil who allegedly helped the petitioner in getting that motor-cycle back has sworn affidavit belying this story. The fact that complainant's husband and other relatives have been challaned by the petitioner in numerous cases as drug-pedlars, suggests that the instant F.I.R. Has been registered on account of either personal vendetta of the complainant or at the prompting of Akbar Ali Bhatti, M.NA. Whose chits were not honoured by the petitioner and, therefore, he organized public meeting/procession demanding transfer of the petitioner. In the circumstances, registration of instant F.I.R. Appears to be tainted with mala fides and consequently I would allow pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner on 11-3-1992 is hereby confirmed.
Disposed of accordingly.