MUKHTAR AHMAD vs STATE

ORDER

Mukhtar Ahmad petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No, 261/08 dated 6.7.2008 for offences under Sections 395/452/354/435/ 440/337-H(2)/148/149 PPC registered at Police Station Chak, Jhumra District Faisalabad.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner after reading the FIR, pointed out that the occurrence as reported were of 20.1.2004, 2.2.2004 and 1.3.2004, whereas the FIR was lodged on 6.7.2008 at the instance of Mst. Naziran Bibi; that the story given in the FIR was improbable; that eight FIRs were lodged during the period from 15.7.2008 to 18.11.2008 which according to the learned counsel, were invented mala fide to built up pressure so as to compel the eight sons of the petitioner to surrender themselves; that the petitioner is 80-years old; that during the course of investigation, nothing was recovered from him and that all events, case against him requires further inquiry. Learned counsel also argued that it was to be seen if the aforementioned FIR could at all be registered in purview of the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C.

3. Grant of bail was vehemently opposed by learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant. It was argued that the petitioner, his eight co-accused who were his real sons, and other co-accused who were his close blood-relations, were all at large; that they were desperados and nobody in the area could muster courage to face the brunt of their reprisal; that the complainant party was forcible shunted out from the village; that they had been moving earth and heavens but nobody was listening to them as the accused party was not only a sign of terror but was also politically well-connected; that head-money of the present petitioner was fixed by the Government as Rs, 2,00,000/-; that he is the head of a notorious gang having a history of hideous criminal .cases and that the petitioner was not entitled to any discretionary relief.

Learned counsel for the complainant submitted a list of cases, which were 27 in number registered against the petitioner, his sons and other relatives.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, I quite see that as many as 27 criminal cases stand registered against the present petitioner, his sons and other close relatives. Out of these 27 cases, five were inter alia under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The other cases also showed that the accused party was involved in dacoities, murders, attempt on life, house trespass, robbery, abduction and all that. Those cases were variously registered during the period from 1.6.1968 to 18.11.2008. Eight sons of the petitioner and his other relatives are all fugitive from law. A reading of the FIR, shows that on account of terrifying atmosphere created by, the accused party, the complainant and her family members had to abandon their houses forlorn and to take refuge elsewhere. The petitioner, according to the FIR, was armed with Kalashnikov at the time of occurrence on 20.1.2004. The accused persons had tied the inmates of the house and after giving them severe beating, had taken away forcibly the animals of the complainant party. In the second occurrence of 2.2.2004, they had criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant and dragging the inmates, had robbed the house-holds and dowry articles. In the third occurrence of 1.3.2004, the accused party again came and cut he standing crops belonging to the complainant party and while leaving had also taken away peter engine and other agricultural instruments/appliances. Since the present petitioner was arrested after four years of the occurrence reported in the FIR, absence of recovery of any crime weapon from him when examined in the backdrop of his criminal history, would not be of much consequence at this stage.

His eight sons and other close relatives, are still fugitive from law. I also see that head money of the present petitioner was fixed by the Government as Rs, 2,00,000/-, and Rs, 8,00,000/- each for his eight sons. A reading of the FIR, shakes the conscience of a common man. The modus in which the occurrence had allegedly taken place might have created a wave of terrorism and sense of insecurity in the mind of general populace. The argument that the occurrences of 20.1.2004, 2.2.2004 and 1.3.2004 could not have been taken cognizance by the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was unconscionable. The delay in lodging the FIR in the circumstances of the present case, in my view, may more appropriately be left to be examined by the trial Court. Old age by itself is never a ground for grant of bail. The nature of the offences committed by an accused has to be kept in view.

5. Considering the over all circumstance of the case, it cannot be said that there are no reasonable grounds to connect the petitioner with the offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Granting bail to the petitioner at this stage would amount to trivialize and play down the gravity of the offences as alleged by the prosecution. Consequently, his bail petition is dismissed.