1. M. ASH RAF LEGHARI, J. -- Applicant Muhammad Aslam has applied for his pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 158/2001 registered at P.S. Boat Basin on 15.11.2001 under Section 380, PPC.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that o$e Rizwan Ali Dodani lodged first information report which was recorded on the basis of his written complaint. It is stated in the application that he, his father namely Mr. Ali Akbar M. ^ Dodani, Judge Accountability Court, along with their family have been provided police guard for security of their properties and lives. Despite the presence of guards for round the clock, theft of cash of Rs. 25,000/- and jewelry worth of Rs. 2,50,000/- had been committed between 13.10.2001 to 2.11.2001.-He displayed his suspicion against the police guard Muhammad Aslam as he had absented himself from duty without intimation after the complainant party got the knowledge of theft.
3. Lt is argued by the learned counsel that the F.I.R, is delayed by about 32 days. The applicant had never remained on duty at night time. The arrest of applicant would be mala i.e and he shall be tortured and humiliated by the police. It is pleaded that the suspicion has always been resolved in favour of accused. The offence for which accused has been charged is not covered by prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C, and the grant of bail in such matters is a rule. Nothing incriminating had been recovered from him although he had attended the police station after getting his interim bail. Police has not collected any piece of evidence connecting the applicant with the commission of alleged offence. Reliance is placed upon the cases of Kamran alias Ghulam Rasool alias Kaloo v.
4. State (PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Karachi) 673, The State v. Aziz alias Abdul Aziz (PLD' 1985 Karachi 27), Meeran Bux v. The State and another (PLD 1989 SC 347) and Zia-ul-Hassan v. The State (PLJ 1984 SC 96).
5. Mr. S. Mehmood Alam. Rizvi learned counsel appearing for complainant argued that complainant and the police has no enmity with the applicant. He was appointed and posted at the residence of complainant for safe guarding the properties and lives of the family of Judge Accountability Court but he along with others failed to perform their duties properly. The rest of the guards on coming to know about the theft never absented themselves but the present applicant absconded, lt is submitted that the applicant after grant of interim pre-arrest bail failed to cooperate with the police and investigation. There is absolutely. No mala i.e on the part of the complainant or the police. On the contrary huge amount of complainant has been stolen which is yet to be recovered and' the applicant is to be interrogated, if the applicant is granted pre-arrest bail, the stolen property, would not lie recovered and the normal procedure of investigation would be hampered.
6. Reliance is placed upon the cases of Sarfraz Ahmed and 7 others v. The State (1992 P.Cr.L.J. 2346) and Abdul Ghafoor and another v. The State (PLD 1988 Karachi 545).
7. Miss Masooda Siraj learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed bail plea of applicant and adopted the arguments of learned counsel for complainant.
8. The record shows that some of the guards including the present applicant were posted at the .
9. Residence of Accountability Judge and were assigned duty to safeguard the property and lives of inmates of house. Theft of cash of Rs. 25,000/- and jewellery worth Rs. 2,50,000/- was committed in-between 13.10.2001 to 2.11.2001. The complainant on coming to know that jewellery was not available in the locker lodged report. The police took up investigation and the present applicant absented himself from duty .Without any intimation. The Complainant and the police has no enmity with the applicant. It is the conduct of the appellant which gave rise to' the suspicion in the mind of complainant. The cash amount and the jewellery is yet to be recovered, ln case the applicant is granted pre-arrest bail the stolen property would not be recovered and the normal procedure would not be recovered and the hampered. The grant of pre-arrest bail in such matters would cause hurdles in achieving the cause of administration of justice. The pre-arrest bail is a discretion and is to be exercised fairly and justifiably in exceptional cases, where the arrest is motivated and harassm ent is apparent on the record. Ho doubt the offence is not covered by prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C, but this case is of pecuniary and extra-ordinary nature as the guards appointed for protection of properties and lives of the complainant are directly involved in the matter. The guardians and protectors of the rights of their masters have turned decoits and thieves. The Courts should not be oblivious of the present situation prevailing in this part of country where the police functionaries have joined hands with hardened criminals for monetary considerations. This case is of exceptional nature which cannot be taken lightly. The parameters for grant of pre-arrest bail; had been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Murad Khan's case reported in Murad Khan v. Fazl-e-Subhan and another (PLD 1983 SC 82) and the instant case does not satisfy the criteria for grant of prearrest bail laid down in afore- mentioned case. The ordinary mode and the procedure of investigation by the police cannot be thwarted by granted pre-arrest bail in such matters.
10. For the reasons stated above, the pre-arrest bail application stands dismissed.