MUHAMMAD AMIN BHATTI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application for protective pre-arrest bail filed by an accused facing charges under Sections 380, 454, 457, 448, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to allegations of trespass and forcible occupation of property. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the conflicting evidence and the nature of the allegations. The Court observed that the FIR itself appeared contradictory, as it suggested the property had been vacated by a different individual, and documentation indicated the applicant was not a party to the relevant property dispute, which was already subject to civil litigation. Furthermore, the prosecution's evidence relied heavily on the testimony of the informant's sons, while other witnesses contradicted the informant's claim of possession. Concluding that the case against the applicant appeared false and motivated by a prior FIR filed by the applicant against the informant, the Court confirmed the interim protective bail, converting it into substantive bail, and issued a show-cause notice to the Station House Officer for failure to comply with previous court orders.
- Can a court confirm interim protective bail when the prosecution's evidence is based on interested witnesses and contradicts the FIR?
- Does the existence of pending civil litigation regarding the disputed property provide grounds for granting pre-arrest bail in a criminal trespass case?
- Can a court convert an application for protective pre-arrest bail into one for substantive bail during the proceedings?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 454, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 448, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The applicant who has applied for protective pre-arrest bail is accused of offences under sections 380, 454, 457, 448, 34, P.P.C. Of Police Station, Bahadurabad. It is alleged that the applicant had trespassed upon and forcibly occupied properties of the informant's daughter. It is not understood how the police could not arrest the applicant in case the allegation was true. Let the S.H.O. Appear in Court on 6-8-2001 and explain the position. Till that date the applicant will not be arrested upon furnishing surety in the amount of Rs,100,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.
(Sd.) Sabihuddin Ahmed, Judge.
1. For further orders on M.A. No,1595/2001. (Certified copy of F.I.R. Not tiled,.
2. For hearing.
(Notice issued to the S.H.O. Police Station Bahadurabad, Karachi for 6-8-2001 by bailiff).
' Chaudhary Abdul Rasheed for Applicant.
' Suleman Habibullah, learned A.A.-G.
' Date of hearing: 6th August, 2001.
ORDER
' Learned A.A.-G. States that the S.H.O.Police Station Bahadurabad did not appear despite being informed of the Court order, dated 4-8-2001 but has sent relevant police papers through an A.S.-I.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant emphatically contends that the applicant has no interest in the property and the allegations contained in the F.I.h. Are totally false. It has been pointed out that even in the F.I.R. The informant stated to have got the property vacated from ex-tenant Iqbal Razvi and not the applicant and a copy of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been delivered to the learned A.A.-G. Confirms that position and shows that the applicant was not a party to proceedings. Moreover, learned counsel has placed on record a copy of plaint in Suit No,912 of 2001 showing that one Muhammad Hafeez had filed a suit against the informant's daughter for specific performance in respect of the shop in question, had claimed possession and an interim order, dated 13-7-2001 had been passed in their favour. It is further contended that the informat has involved the applicant in a false case owing to the fact that the applicant had got F.I.R. No,82 of 2001 recorded against the informant.
3. Learned A.A.-G. Candidly states that according to the police papers two persons whose statements have been recorded have claimed the informant to be in possession of the shop whereas the other two persons supporting the informant's version are his own sons. In the circumstances, I would treat this application as one for substantive bail and the interim protection granted to the applicant is hereby confirmed. Let notice for 13-8-2001 issue to the S.H.O., Police Station Bahadurabad, Karachi to show cause as to why action for not complying with the Court order, dated 4-8-2001 should not be taken.