RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, J.- Nisar Ahmed, petitioner, seeks his prearrest bail in case FIR No. 219, dated 14.12.1997, registered at P.S. Kotli Loharan District Sialkot, under Sections 440/148/149, PPC at the instance of Mehboob Nasir, complainant.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner while armed with pistol, his father Faiz Ahmed armed with 12 bore gun, Aftab Ahmed, Iftikhar Ahmed and Ijaz Ahmed alongwith another unknown person armed with dandas arrived on a Tractor and destroyed the crop of the complainant. The occurrence was witnessed by Tufail Ahmed and Arshad Ali PWs.
3. While the case was under investigation, a request was made by the police for further remand of the accused but the learned Magistrate hy his order dated 9.7.1998 refused to grant the remand and discharged the accused. The k complainant find revision against the order of discharge before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sialkot who set aside the same and ordered that the accused be arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate with a similar request by the police as was made on 9.7.1998. The Magistrate was directed to proceed with the application in accordance with law in the light of observations made in the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge.
4. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted application before the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot for grant of his pre-arrested bail Interim bail was granted to him and the case was find for 22. 12.1998. The petitioner did not appear on that date and his application was dismissed in default. On the same day another application was submitted by him for ad interim bail wherein notice was issued to state for 28. 12.1998. On the adjourned date again the petitioner avoided appearance and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed his application. The petitioner, thereafter find this petition in this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is an educated person and has been falsely implicated in this case which has been registered in a mala fide manner. He prays for grant of pre- arrest bail.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand submits that the learned Magistrate instead of granting or refusing physical remand of the accused, discharged them illegally. The discharge order having been found illegal was rightly set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The petitioner has been playing hide and seek and he did not disclose the fact that his application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on accused of non appearance. He is, therefore, not entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The petitioner submitted his application for grant of pre-arrest bail. He was granted pre-arrest interim bail but subsequently he absented himself on 22.12.1998 and the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Again he made application on the same day and notice was issued to State for 28.12.1998 but on this date too he intentionally disappeared and the learned Sessions Judge observed that he was misusing the process of law. His petition was, therefore, dismissed. These facts have not been disclosed by the petitioner in the present petition. The conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to extra ordinary concession of bail. Even otherwise no mala fide on the part of prosecution or the complainant has been established for registration of the case against him. He is specifically named in the FIR. He destroyed the crop of the complainant with co-accused armed with deadly weapons.
For the aforegoing reasons I am not inclined to grant him pre-arrest bail. The interim pre-arrest to him vide dated 15.1.1999 is hereby recalled. The petition is dismissed accordingly.