MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others vs THE STATE and others

ORDER

' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.---Petitioners have come to this Court for the grant of pre-arrest bail in a private complaint filed by respondent No,2 Allah Ditta. After having been dissatisfied with the outcome of investigation of a case registered vide F.I.R. No,700 dated 15-11-2010 under sections 3547-A, 452, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(ii), 148, 149, P.P.C. At Police Station Hujra Shah Mudeem, District Okara.

2. In a narrow compass the prosecution case is that petitioners while armed with different weapons raised lalkaras and cause injuries to Amanat Ali, Allah Ditta complainant and Salamat. On hearing the screams Mst. Sakina Bibi, wife of the complainant and his daughter Mst. Shakeela Bibi came at the spot. Modesties of both of them were outraged by the petitioners. In this process raiments of Mst. Shakeela Bibi were torn and she became nude. The case was investigated but it was found false then a report of its cancellation was prepared by the police on 23-11-2010.

3. Respondent No,2 Allah Ditta being aggrieved of the opinion of the police instituted a private criminal complaint on the same facts mentioned in the F.I.R. Under the same offence by adding offence under. Section 354-A, P.P.C. Instead of section 354, P.P.C.

4. Learned trial court after undergoing the private complaint summoned the petitioners to face the trial under section 204, P.P.C. Under the penal provisions mentioned, in the private complaint.

Responding to the process issued by the learned trial court petitioners applied for the grant of pre- arrest bail but the same was declined and now the instant application for the grant of pre-arrest bail.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that police after through investigation has come to the conclusion that petitioners were innocent and their arrest were not caused. Learned counsel further submitted that the procedure for appearing in the complaint case of the persons against whom the complaint is pending has been provided under section 91, Cr.P.C. And the learned trial court was obliged to accept bonds for appearance of the petitioners during the process of trial. It has further been maintained that the provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C. Do not become operative in the private complaint case, therefore, the, instant application may be allowed as physical custody of the petitioners is not required by the police.

6. Learned D.P.-G. Assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the application on the ground that police opinion is not binding upon the courts; the offence alleged under section 354-A, P.P.C. Falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.; the learned trial court after assessing the preliminary evidence has held that prima facie the petitioners are connected with the commission of the crime, therefore, they are not entitled for the concession of extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

7. Heard. Record perused.

8. The case got lodged by the complainant has been found false after thorough investigation and the investigating agency did not find it fit to cause the arrest of the petitioners and the situation is the same so as the investigation is concerned. As far as the summoning of the petitioners in the complaint case by the learned trial court is concerned in the recent unreported judgment passed in Criminal Petition No, 393-L of 2011 titled Muhammad Yousuf Iqbal v. The State and another. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held on 15-6-2011 that in the private complaint physical custody of the accused was not required by the police and just the accused persons were summoned to face the trial. Relevant paragraph is reproduced as follows:-- "In view of the above, neither the police wants to arrest the petitioner nor the trial court has issued any non-bailable warrants against the petitioner and the petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail is rather misconceived, however, the petitioner may, if so advised, submit bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Disposed of accordingly."

9. The dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan mentioned supra, the instant application is allowed. Pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousands only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.