MUHAMMAD ZAFFAR SHAH vs THE STATE and another

ORDER

' SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.---Muhammad Zafar Shah son of Rahib Shah, petitioner seeks his bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,432 of 2009 dated 26-11-2009 under sections 506, 148, 149, P.P.C.

Registered at Police Station Daira Din Pannah District Muzaffargarh.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. Is that on 23-11-2009, when the complainant was going to his duty by car, he was intercepted by 'the petitioner and others, where the petitioner placed barrel of the pistol on the temple of the complainant and the remaining accused persons gave beatings to him and also tried to put him in the car forcibly. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. That during the occurrence, Rs,16,500 were also taken out by the accused persons and they also threatened him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that complainant enticed the daughter of Ismail Shah namely Mst. Samia and contracted marriage with her. Co-accused Muhammad Ashraf Shah and Muhammad Afzal Shah are the brothers of previous husband of said Samia and the petitioner is their cousin and thus the dispute arose between the parties. Further contends that during the investigation the I.O. Present in Court, found that although the quarrel took place but the petitioner was not armed with a pistol nor any money was snatched from the complainant. According to said S.-I., the petitioner had joined the investigation and nothing is to be recovered from him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 2004 SCM R 1167.

4. The DDPP along with complainant present in Court has opposed this bail petition.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. Without going deep into the merits of the case as there was a dispute over the marriage of Mst.

Sarnia the daughter of Ismail Shah with the complainant. Petitioner is cousin of previous husband of the said Mst. Samia, therefore, that would have been the cause of involvement of the petitioner in the present case. The person of the petitioner is not required by the police for the purpose of any recovery and according to the police official present in Court the petitioner was not armed with any weapon of offence nor any money was snatched from the complainant. So far section 506, P.P.C. Is concerned simple threats do not constitute criminal intimidation as defined under section 503, P.P.C. No useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars.

Consequently, while allowing this petition I confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 22-2-2010 of this Court subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

Prearrest .