ABDUL REHMAN and another vs THE STATE
This matter arose from two connected post-arrest bail applications filed by the petitioners under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, following their arrest under Sections 440, 448, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in an FIR registered at Police Station Musa Khel, District Mianwali. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners unlawfully entered the complainant's property, evicted labourers, disconnected telephone wires, and demolished a four-room house. The core legal questions before the court were whether post-arrest bail should be granted where the underlying dispute is essentially civil and the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court accepted both bail petitions and ordered the release of the petitioners upon submitting bail bonds. The Court held that where a criminal case arises primarily from a land dispute of a civil nature and the charged offences do not fall under the prohibitory clause, post-arrest bail ought to be granted.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when a dispute between parties is primarily of a civil nature?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail where the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 448, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' M.A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J --- Atta Muhammad, Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Suleman, Raza Muhammad, Qaiser Rehman and Khaliq Dad petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 2630-B of 2006 and Abdul Rehman and Muhammad Asif petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 2531-B of 2006 have sought post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,5 dated 4-1-2006 registered at Police Station Musa Khel, District Mianwali under sections 440/ 448/148/149, P.P.C.
2. According to the prosecution's case Muhammad Saleem Khan complainant who has been in occupation of some land for the last 40 year's has installed a stone crusher and constructed a house which consisted of four rooms, two verandas and a bath-room.
' The complainant also claims to be co-sharer in the adjoining land bearing Khasra No,1702 in which Suleman accused had also purchased land about one year ago. Allegedly Suleman accompanied by Raza Khan, Atta Muhammad, Faisal, Abdul Rehman, Muhammad Asif, Khaliq Dad and others entered upon the property of the complainant forced the labourers to vacate the premises disconnected the telephone wires and demolished the house of the complainant. The matter was reported to the police on 4-1-2006.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. Admittedly Suleman Khan had purchased land in Khasra No,1702 whereas Muhammad Saleem complainant was also in occupation of land in that very Khata for the last so many years as an encroacher. In order to justify his possession he purchased 18 Marlas of land in Khasra No,1702 through registered sale-deed dated 1-11-2005. This led to a dispute which the parties first tried to get it resolved through the Revenue Department as is evident from the report of the Tehsildar. Primarily It was a dispute of civil nature. The offences with which the accused have been charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause.
4. I, therefore, accept both the petitions (Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.2630-B of 2006 and 2531-B of 2006) and order the release of the petitioner on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of.
Rs,20,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, Mianwali.