MUHAMMAD ASIF Versus State
ORDER
SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J .--Petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No. 150/2010, for offences under sections 353, 365, 380, 419, 511, 148, 149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Gowalmandi, Lahore, on the complaint of Rustam Ali A.S.-I.
2. Precisely the version of the complainant is that he was going to Police Station Gowalmandi, Lahore on foot in connection with his duty at 4/5.00 p.m. on 26-3-2010 when he reached in front of shop of Sardar Fish Seller, situated in Food Street Gowalmandi, he was confronted with Muhammad Asif and 3/4 unknown accused persons who caught him from his arms; one of the companions of Asif introduced himself as Inspector Anti-Corruption Establishment and started beating him; he caught hold the complainant and another person shot photographs; his official uniform/shirt was torn and he received injuries on his body; they attempted to forcibly abduct him whereupon he raised alarm which attracted a number of persons to the place of occurrence; some police officials reached there on an official vehicle, who rescued Rustam Ali, A.S.-I, the complainant; Muhammad Asif fled away with his companions and they also snatched a mobile phone Nokia from him; the complainant disappeared due to his injuries and fear of Anti-Corruption, he later on learnt that none of the aforementioned persons was an Anti-Corruption Officer, rather, he had impersonated as such, to exert pressure on him. The motive behind the occurrence was that he along with other police officials had caught Asif etc., red handed and registered a criminal case against him; that Muhammad Asif accused had also got lodged a criminal case F.I.R. No.117/2010 against the complainant and other police officials on the basis of bogus medical certificate, which was being investigated by D.S.P. Gowalmandi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an unexplained delay of 17 days in lodgment of F.I.R.; that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to malice and ulterior motives of the complainant who had lodged a false case against the petitioner as counterblast to F.I.R. No. 117 of 2010 whereof, the petitioner was the complainant; that none of the offences falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.; that section 380 and sections 365 and 419 P.P.C. were not attracted against the petitioner as the petitioner had not been alleged to impersonate, as an officer of Anti-Corruption Establishment; that the allegation of violence upon the complainant is not supported by any medical evidence as he did not get himself medically examined; that insertion of section 511, P.P.C. indicates that the charge of alleged abduction and theft was false; that the petitioner's case calls for further inquiry into his guilt.
4. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner with the contention that Muhammad Asif accused and his family are a criminal lot and they stand involved in scores of criminal cases; that the accused petitioner too, has previous record of involvement in 10 criminal cases; his father is involved in 23 criminal cases and same is the situation with other members of his family; that the petitioner is equally liable for the whole occurrence and his case cannot be segregated from the role of his co-accused and he is an accused in equal degree; that the prosecution witnesses support the version of the complainant as contained in the F.I.R.; that the petitioner has failed to point out any element of malice or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant and he is not entitled for extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place at 4/5-00 p.m. on 26-3-2010 but the matter was reported to the police with a delay of about 17 days on 12-4-2010 for registration of the instant case for which no plausible explanation has/been offered by the complainant who himself is a police official and is supposed to understand, as to what a promptly lodged F.I.R. or a delayed F.I.R. means. It has been specifically alleged that the accused petitioner and his co-accused committed violence upon the complainant as a result of which he received a number of injuries but there is no medical evidence which could substantiate this part of F.I.R. as the complainant frankly admitted that he had not gone to any medical officer for medical examination of his injuries. No torn police uniform has been taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. I have gone through the record of this case, which indicates that two witnesses Muhammad Arshad Khan S.-I. and Abdul Jabbar constable had been examined under section 161 Cr. P.C. but none of the two witnesses nominates the petitioner as an accused of this case and instead they have deposed that 4/5 persons were dragging Rustam Ali A.S.-I. and that they had rescued him from their clutches. Both the witnesses have not stated about the alleged violence, attempted abduction of the complainant, impersonation or snatching of a mobile phone from the complainant. The photographs attached with the record hardly corroborate the allegations contained in the F.I.R. The petitioner is a complainant of case F.I.R. No.117/10 wherein Rustam Ali A.S.-I. is a nominated accused. The false implication of the accused/petitioner in this case due to malice or ulterior motives of the complainant, in attending circumstances of the cases, cannot be ruled out. The mere factum of involvement in a number of criminal cases, without any conviction, cannot impede the grant of bail to the petitioner, as his case is fully covered under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
7. For what has been discussed above, I accept instant bail petition and confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner on 27-4-2010 subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Courts.
A.R.K./M-302/L Petition accepted.