Muhammad Ashfaq vs The State
This is a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Ashfaq, in connection with F.I.R. No. 310, registered under Sections 448, 380, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, armed with a pistol, trespassed into the complainant's shop, forcibly dispossessed him, and stole goods worth Rs. 25,000, subsequently amalgamating the shop with a co-accused's property. The petitioner argued that the F.I.R. was delayed by three years, that he was a bona fide tenant, and that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The State and the complainant opposed bail, citing the petitioner's specific role and investigative reports confirming prima facie guilt. The Court observed that the complainant's ownership was undisputed and that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of lawful tenancy or possession. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for the grant of bail and dismissed the petition, emphasizing the petitioner's specific role and the prima facie evidence of dispossession.
- Does a claim of bona fide tenancy automatically entitle an accused to bail in a case of forcible dispossession?
- Is bail grantable when the petitioner fails to prima facie demonstrate the extent of their lawful possession or tenancy?
- Does the failure to fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 guarantee the grant of bail?
- Section 448, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI, J.-- This is a petition for bail after arrest of the petitioner in case F.I.R. No. 310, dated29.11.2004 registered under Sections 448/380/148/149, PPC at Police Station, Kotwali District Faisalabad.
2. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner armed with 30 bore pistol along with several co- accused trespassed into the shop/cabin of Abdul Ghafoor complainant and forcibly dispossessed him from the same and also took away goods worth Rs. 25,000/- as mentioned in the F.I.R. Thereafter the shop/cabin was amalgamated with the other shop of Dr. Dawood co- accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegation contained in the F.I.R, is false as the petitioner is a bona fide tenant in another shop/cabin belonging to Dr. Dawood co-accused, It is urged that the F.I.R, has been lodged with a delay of 3 years which has gone unexplained on the record, It is further contended that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C, and that the petitioner is entitled to bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail on the ground that admittedly the complainant is the owner of the shop cabin in question. He was forcibly dispossessed from the same and that in the report of DCO and DSP City, the petitioner and the other co- accused have been found prima facie guilty of the offence, It is further submitted that it was with great effort that the complainant was able to register the F.I.R, despite various attempts. The local police did not register the F.I.R, It is also submitted that apprehending foul play the complainant had filed an application before the police even before the occurrence that the accused wanted to interfere in the lawful possession of the complainant.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6. It is not denied that the complainant is the owner of the shop in question, It is also not the case of the petitioner that the complainant is still in possession of the same. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R, with a. Specific role. The shop of the petitioner according to the prosecution case has been amalgamated with the other shop belonging to the co-accused Dr. Dawood. The petitioner claims himself to be a tenant under the said Dr. Dawood but has not prima facie shown the extent of his lawful tenancy or the extent of his present possession.
7. In view of the above, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for the grant of bail.
This petition is dismissed.