MUHAMMAD RAZA vs The STATE and another

ORDER

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The allegation against the petitioner, Muhammad Raza, as per FIR No.17/2013, dated 20.1.2013, for offences under sections 440, 342, 380, 411, 337-L(2), 420, 468, 471, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Ahmadpur Sial (Jhang) is that he along with his co-accused, all being armed with guns trespassed on the mansion of Nawazish Ali (complainant) at about 10.00 a.m. on 11.12.2012 and started dismantling an intervening wall between the said mansion and their residential house, which had been erected by an order of the court; the complainant and his companions abstained them from doing so, whereon they pulled out a stamp-paper/agreement to sell and told the complainant that he had sold the said house to them; the complainant being distraught told them that they had committed forgery as he had not sold his house to them; the accused tortured him by encircling a rope around his neck and also dragged him at the spot; they felled the four wall, snatched his cell-phone and forcibly drove him to their dera where they confined him in a room, they also took away a hundred feet long water-pipe, a hand-cart and some other building-tools with them.

2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accusations as contained in the FIR are baseless and do not depict a true picture of the allegedly built intervening wall and demolition thereof, for, no such incident had ever taken place; the delay of about. forty

(40) days in Judgment of FIR has not been explained at all by the complainant; the allegation qua forged agreement-deed showing sale of his house by the complainant to the accused was not the subject-matter of the petition, which he had moved under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Jhang for registration of case against the petitioner. It has lastly been contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner has not committed, any offence and being innocent he may be granted the relief prayed, for.

3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail application on the ground that the accused not only showed roguishness at the crucial hour but they also made a mockery of the court order, whereby intervening wall between the house of the complainant and that of their own had been rebuilt, as they all including the petitioner razed it to the ground to grab again a portion of the house of the complainant; the delay in Judgment of FIR had been caused due to traditional laziness of the police, otherwise complainant had immediately reported the crime to them; lastly contended that the complainant had no or grudge against the petitioner and others, for having lodged a criminal case against them, therefore, this application may be turned down.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioner joined by his co-accused allegedly committed the worst sort of roguery, as they demolished that part of the house of the complainant, which had been got built by a court of law, after longstanding civil litigation between them came to an end. The accused had, in fact, forcibly occupied vacant area of the complainant's house sometimes in the past by demolishing the intervening wall between their house and that of the latter and made it a part of their own. The possession of the grabbed area was salvaged to the complainant and the intervening wall was reconstructed by the orders of the court, which was allegedly demolished by the accused at the time of the alleged occurrence. The medico-legal report of Nawazish Ali (complainant) showed a contusion of 8 cm x 1/2 cm on the front and middle of his neck, with pain at the chest, back, legs and arms, which corroborated the allegation that he had been dragged by the accused with a rope around his neck. The delay in Judgment of FIR, though not explained by the complainant, cannot be considered damaging to his case at this stage, nor could it be held an ultimate circumstance to grant extraordinary relief of bail-before-arrest to the petitioner.

5. There is another important aspect of the case, which really damaged the petitioner's quest for bail, as he, after having his pre-arrest bail application dismissed by the sessions court concerned in the last ten days of December 2013, joined investigation on 15.1.2014 and contended that he was on an ad-interim pre-arrest bail then, which was believed as such by the investigating officer without asking for any evidence in this regard and he readily declared him innocent, the same day, without caring for the fact that a report under section 512, Cr.P.C. had already been submitted against him before the court concerned on 3.11.2013. The petitioner's second application for bailbefore-arrest was dismissed by the additional sessions judge, Ahmadpur Sial (Jhang) on 21.9.2015 with a reference to his exaggeration contention before the investigating officer of being on ad-interim pre-arrest bail on 15.1.2014, despite being not so placed. The petitioner's learned counsel was asked as to what he had to offer in this regard, in answer to which he said nothing, except for submitting that the petitioner's first pre-arrest bail application had been dismissed a few days before he joined the investigation on 15.1.2014. It may be learnt from the record that the petitioner had been proceeded against under section 87, Cr.P.C. on 8.5.2013. There exists no reason to believe that he has been falsely involved in this case due to some mala fide or malice of the complainant. Dismissed. The ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to him on 23.9.2015 is recalled.