' Through this bail application the petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case . F.I.R. No,299 of 2001 registered on 11-7-2001 under sections 354 / 506, P.P.C. With Police 'Station Misri. Shah, Lahore, on the statement of Mst. Saira Bibi for an occurrence which took place on 9-7-2001.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Nazik Hussain petitioner was married to the younger sister of the complainant who is also maternal cousin of the complainant. A dispute arose between the spouses. The petitioner demanded Rs,30,000 for sending brother of the complainant to Muscat. The petitioner according to the complainant threatened that if the amount is not paid he will divorce his wife. At last Nazik Hussain petitioner turned out sister of the complainant from his house. A family suit was filed for dissolution of marriage against Nazik Hussain petitioner by the sister of the complainant which is fixed in the month of September, 2001. Complainant claims that she pursued the case of her sister and Nazik Hussain petitioner has used different tactics to tease her. He rings and also threatens on telephone. She claimed: that he chased her and on 9-7-2001, the day of occurrence at 9-00 a.m. When she came out of her house for going to the office and when the complainant reached near Chammra Mandi the petitioner along with two other persons were present took out pistol and also threatened that he will murder her if she again came to pursue the case. The complainant stated that she posed that she had not heard anything and continued her journey to the office on which the complainant also dragged and slapped her. On hue and cry the witnesses attracted to the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has lodged F.I.R. No,123 of 2001 on 16-3-2001 under section 380/457, P.P.C. Against the-husband of the complainant at the same police station. A compromise was effected between the petitioner and the husband of Mst. Irshad Bano and pre-arrest bail was confirmed. He further contends that when an application was moved by the husband of Mst. Irshad Bano under section 494, Cr.P.C. For the withdrawal of the case got lodged by the petitioner, the petitioner opposed the same and this case has been registered in order to teach a lesson to the petitioner. He further contends that the civil litigation is going on between the petitioner and the, sister of the complainant. Apart from suit for dissolution of marriage, a suit has been filed for the custody of the children which is also pending in the Court of learned Guardian Judge and the F.I.R. Has been lodged with mala fide intention and ulterior motive.
A bare perusal of the F.I.R. Shows that the offence under sections 354/506, P.P.C. Are not made out and the petitioner is entitled to this relief.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant and the State has opposed the bail application on the ground that the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the F.I.R. With a specific role. Witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. Have supported the version of the complainant. There is sufficient evidence according to the learned counsel for the complainant on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. Learned counsel for the complainant further contends that the petitioner is not entitled to any extraordinary relief as he had already destroyed the life of the sister of the complainant and is a man with bad designs as he had got lodged a false case of theft against the petitioner's husband and other close relatives.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Admittedly the petitioner and the complainant are maternal cousin. The sister of the complainant was married to the petitioner and out of the wedlock children were born but some family dispute arose and the complainant's sister filed a suit for dissolution of marriage. Relations between the parties became strained and the petitioner got lodged a case under sections 380/457, P. P. C . Against the husband of the complainant and other close relatives of the complainant and at the time of confirmation of bail before arrest a compromise was effected between the parties and the bail of the husband of the complainant was confirmed but the petitioner claims that the terms of the compromise were not fulfilled by the complainant party and instead of fulfilling the compromise, a one-sided application under section 494, Cr.P.C. Was moved for the withdrawal of the case got lodged by the petitioner and when the petitioner came to know, about the filing of this application he opposed the same as compromise was effected to the extent of confirmation of bail: This fact has annoyed the complainant and other family members and it seems that the registration of the instant case is the result of the above said annoyance. I have also noticed that the ingredients of section 354, P.P.C. Are not fully made out from a bare perusal of the F.I.R. As nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and prima facie he has succeeded in making out a case for bail before arrest due to the admitted previous enmity between the parties and due to the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. Bail before arrest is meant to protect the innocent citizens and if it is proved that there are mala fide intention for the false involvement of the accused in such like cases, he is entitled to the confirmation of bail before arrest as in case his bail is refused he will suffer an irreparable loss to his reputation which can never be compensated even ultimately he is acquitted from the charges.
6. In view of the above circumstances the bail before arrest already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 23-7-2001 is hereby confirmed. However, the petitioner is directed to submit fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Lahore. This petition is disposed of.
Pre-arrest . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.