VASEEM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH

ORDER

Muhammad Sarwar and Manzoor Ahmad, the petitioners, are seeking bail before arrest in case F. I. R. No.151/96 registered on 3-9-1996 under section 365/440/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Shehr Farid, District Bahawalnagar, at the instance of complainant Muhammad Riaz against the petitioners and 6 others for an occurrence which is alleged to have taken place in the intervening night of 1st and 2nd September, 1996.

2. The facts, in brief, as alleged in the F.I.R., are that the complainant is a lessee of one Sahibzada Mian Muhammad Arif and cultivates his land in Mauza Mahar Sharif and on the night of occurrence while he was going towards his home, he saw the petitioner Muhammad Sarwar armed with .30 bore pistol and petitioner Manzoor Ahmad equipped with rifle and other co-accused carried Dangs and rifles,, were present in his standing crops. The co-accused Ghulam Muhammad, Muhammad Sabir and Muhammad Masood were cutting the crops with sickles and on his resistance the petitioners and accused Muhammad Tariq and Khuda Bakhsh caught hold of him, closed his mouth with a cloth, lifted him from the place of occurrence, confined him in a room of a brick-kiln, locked him and left the place. Thereafter, he was released by the P. Ws.

3. Petitioners' application for bail before arrest was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar on 21-9-1996.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of more than 34 hours; wild allegations have been levelled against large number of persons including the petitioners belonging to the same family; there is no eye-witness of the occurrence; there is an established enmity of the petitioners' family with the complainant's employer Mian Muhammad Arif, Ghulam Muhammad and Lal Din co-accused who are also father and uncle respectively of the petitioner Muhammad Sarwar have filed a suit for permanent injunction against Mian Muhammad Arif who wanted to illegally occupy the land belonging to them and the Civil Court granted stay to the plaintiff on 1-9-1996 restraining Mian Muhammad Arif from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and as a counterblast to the civil suit, the petitioners and others have been involved in this false and bogus case in a mala fide manner with the intention to dispossess them from the land which is in dispute between the two parties. Learned counsel has also produced copy of the plaint alongwith copy of the stay order in favour of Ghulam Muhammad and Lai Din.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State while opposing the petition states that Ghulam Muhammad etc. are owners of only one Kanal of land in the joint Khata in which Mian Muhammad Arif is also an owner and there is a dispute of possession and the accused have tried to lift the crops forcibly from the land in dispute. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted that Ghulam Muhammad etc. have filed a fictitious civil suit with the ulterior motive to take possession of the land in dispute under the cover of stay order.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record

7. Admittedly there is an enmity between the complainant's employer and the accused and large number of able-bodied men belonging to the same family have been roped in this case of which there is no eye-witness and due to the previous enmity between the parties, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the petitioners have been involved in a mala fide manner just to widen the net which makes it also a case of further inquiry.

8. In these circumstances, this application is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners on 26-9-1996 by this Court is hereby confirmed on the same bail bonds.

N.H.Q./M-241/1 Application allowed