The petitioners are involved in case F.I.R. No.211 of 2002, dated 31-7-2002 for an offence under sections 452/354/440/148/ 149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station City Chiniot.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that there is a civil dispute qua the house. In question between petitioner No. 1, Fazal and Ghulam Habib which is pending adjudication before the competent Court. He further submits that the complainant mala fide got the aforesaid case registered against the petitioners under the influence of aforesaid Fazal and Ghulam Habib. He further submits that the possession of the house is still with petitioner No. 1, therefore, petitioners did not commit offence under section 452, P.P.C. He further submits that sentence prescribed in section 354, P. P. C. Is two years whereas under section 440, P. P. C. The maximum punishment is five years, therefore, the case of the petitioners does not fall under the prohibitory clause. He further urges that contents of the F.I.R. Do not disclose any offence. He further urges that no body is injured from the complainant side, no medical evidence was produced by the complainant's side before the Investigating Agency. He further submits that petitioner No.2 filed a Writ Petition No.14253 of 2002 which was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 7-8-2002. The S.S.P. Was directed to hold an inquiry against the S.H.O., Police Station City Chiniot regarding the illegal arrest of Shakeel Ahmad and keeping him in Police Station since 31-7-2002 without producing him before the learned Magistrate. The investigation be completed within 30 days and would be held by a police officer: not below the rank of D.S.P. Other than the S.D.P.O. Of the area and in case the S.H.O. Is found guilty the S.S.P. Shall ensure that he is not posted as S.H.O. Of any police station for six months.
3. The learned Additional Advocate --General, submits that Investigating Agency investigated the case and found the petitioners as guilty. He further submits that weapon of offence .12 bore gun was recovered from petitioner No.1. He further urges that investigation was conducted by Karim Nawaz, D.S.P. As directed by this Court and found the petitioners as guilty. The petitioners have taken the possession of the house in question by way of compromise.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. In case the contents of the F.I.R. Be read as a whole, then it does not reveal that petitioners committed the offence under section 452, P.P.C. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner No.1 is in possession of the house in question till date, coupled with the fact that no body was injured from the complainant side. The prosecution failed to produce any medical evidence to this effect, therefore, the ingredients of section 452, P.P.C. Are not attracted in the present case. The assertion of the Investigating Agency that the possession was taken by the petitioners by way of compromise has no force. The other offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Do not fall in the prohibitory clause. It is pertinent to mention here that there was no person injured from the complainant's side when the petitioners alongwith 20 persons entered in the house in question with weapons. The civil suit is also pending before the competent Court. This fact also brings the case of the petitioners in the area of doubt. It is settled principle of law that benefit of doubt be given to the accused party as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Amir v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 277).
It is also settled principle of law that bail would not be withheld as punishment as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Manzoor and 4 others v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 81) and Ch. Abdul Malik v. The State PLD 1968 SC 349.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are granted bail subject to their furnishing the bail bonds amounting to Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/competent Court. In case the petitioners are not involved in any other case, then the petitioners be released in case the petitioners furnish the bail bonds as mentioned above. The trial Court shall decide the case without being influenced by the observations of this Court. The petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing otherwise the law will take its own course.