RAO IRSHAD AHMED and 9 others vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by ten petitioners accused of various offences, including trespass, arson, theft, and zina-bil-jabr, following an FIR registered against them. The petitioners contended that the case was fabricated due to ongoing civil litigation and that they had been found innocent in earlier police investigations. Conversely, the State and the complainant argued that the petitioners were named in the FIR, that the offences involved high-handedness against a widow, and that recoveries of stolen property and weapons were still pending. Furthermore, allegations were raised that one petitioner had tampered with hospital records to fabricate an alibi. The Court held that the petitioners were prima facie connected to the offences, noting the severity of the allegations and the need for further investigation, including the recovery of incriminating items. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioners were not entitled to the extraordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the prima facie evidence of their involvement.
- Is a petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail when they are prima facie connected to heinous offences and recoveries are yet to be made?
- Does the existence of prior civil litigation between the parties automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Can an accused be denied pre-arrest bail if there is evidence suggesting they tampered with official records to create a false alibi?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 448, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioners Rao Irshad Ahmad, Rao Muhammad Tasleem, Nazir Ahmad, Riasat Ali, Zulfiqar Ali, Muhammad Siddique, Liaqat Ali, Waris Ali, Tariq and Abdul Jabbar through the instant petition have sought for pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 98 originally registered under Sections 380/436/ 448/457/148/149 PPC with Police Station Dalweryam, District Pakpattan Sharif on 9.12.2003.
2. Briefly the prosecution case against them is that they on the night between 6/7.12.2003 alongwith others, while variously armed, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by them have trespassed into the house of the complainant Mst. Allah .Jewai and on fire- arm point had shut her and her family in a room and then with the tractor had demolished the outer wall of the same and sprinkled diesel on the Chappars there and set the same at ablaze and also committed the theft of her house hold articles, wheat, hens and cook and three out of them namely Rao Muhammad Saleem, Bashir and Tariq had also subjected her to zina-bil-jabr.
3. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in with mala fide intention on the part of the complainant as civil litigation in respect of the house in dispute between Rao Muhammad Tasleem on one hand and her son-in-law Abdul Ghafoor on the other is going on and in the same order of maintenance of status quo has been issued and she wanted them to withdraw that suit; that the FIR was registered on her written application and in the same she did not level any allegation of zina-bil-jabr with her against any of the petitioners-accused and so story in this behalf is made up one to make the matter more graver and heinous; that they in the investigation conducted by the SI, Abdul Ghafoor and Inspector, Tariq Pervaiz have been found innocent; that the third investigating officer Maratib Ali, DSP was having bias.against them under the influence of one Muhammad Hussain Warraich, retired DSP, who is her supporter; that in the first two investigations the offence under Sections 380/436/457 PPC were deleted but the DSP has again wrongly added Sections 380 and 457 PPC in the case; that Petitioner No, 1 Rao Irshad Ahmad had remained admitted in the DHQ, Hospital ' during the period from 5.12.2003 to 8.12.2003 and so his implication in the case is false on that count too and the same rather makes the whole story of the complainant against them as doubtful; and that they have joined the investigation.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that they all are named in the FIR; that they alongwith their co-accused while armed with lethal weapons at night time had trespassed into the house of the complainant and on fire-arm point had shut her and her entire family in a room and then with the tractor demolished the outer wall and also set the Chappars at ablaze there and also committed the theft of her different articles including wheat, hens and cook and three out of them named above had subjected her to zina-bil-jabr; that they have committed the' act complained of under the cover of status quo order; that it is a clear case of high handedness on their part inasmuch as that they have forcibly occupied the house of the widow and had demolished the same and also looted her different articles and some of them had also subjected her to zina-bil- jabr; that the recovery of crime-weapons and stolen articles of the complainant are yet to be recovered from them; that the offence under Sections 457 and 380 PPC is very much there in the case; that they in the investigation conducted by the senior police officer of the rank of DSP had been found to be involved in the matter; that during the investigation by him, it has also been found that petitioner Rao Irshad Ahmad with the, help of certain officials of the DHQ Hospital, Pakpattan Sharif had tampered with the record there and so obtained the bogus certificate of his admission and so he has committed another heinous offence; that offence under Section 457 PPC falls within the prohibitory clause contained in Section 497 (1) Cr.P.C.; and that they in the above facts and circumstances of the case are not entitled to the extra-ordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. The petitioners are named in the FIR. They allegedly alongwith others, while variously armed at midnight had trespassed into the house of the complainant, who is widow and had shut her and her entire family in a room and demolished the outer wall with tractor and also set at ablaze the Chappars there and also took away her different articles including wheat, hens and cook. Allegedly three out of them namely Rao Muhammad Tasleem (Petitioner No, 2), Tariq (Petitioner No, 9) and Bashir have also subjected her to zina-bil-jabr.
7. There are on the record the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. of Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Sharif and others in the line of the version as contained in the FIR. So, they prima facie are connected with the alleged offence, It apparently seems to be a case of high handedness on their part. Allegedly recovery of crime weapons as well as the stolen articles of the complainant is yet to be effected from them.
8. During the investigation by DSP, it has also been found that Petitioner No, 1 Rao Irshad Ahmed has maneuvered to tamper with the record of DHQ Hospital, Pakpattan Sharif with the connivance of some staff members there and. obtained the copy of the bed ticket and other record there from. It perhaps was to raise plea of alibi by him. It has also been found in the investigation by him that he had participated in the occurrence.
9. In these circumstances, I do not find it at least a case for grant of pre-arrest bail to them. The petition, therefore, is dismissed.