MUHAMMAD AFZAL alias PAPUU vs THE STATE

ORDER

' Through this application under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,290 registered at Police Station A-Division, Okara on 2nd June, 2001 on the statement of. Dost , Muhammad under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 472, P.P.C., in which it has been alleged that the petitioner used to claim that his friend Muhammad Arif is serving in the Registration Department and can prepare the identity card without delay. In order to verify the complainant asked him to prepare identity card in the name of Mst. Azra Bibi. He prepared the identity card in the presence of the complainant on the receipt of Rs,1,000, while affixing forged stamps at his residence, hence this case has been registered.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that another case F.I.R. No,291 was registered on 3.6.2001 under sections 353/ 342/506/186/224/225, P.P.C. At the same police station. In which the petitioner was arrested and remained on police remand and so called recovery of stamps was effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the arrest of the petitioner was not made in this case which was registered earlier with mala fide intention by the police. It is further contended that the private complaint has been filed against the police officials in which all the police officers have been summoned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of judicial inquiry. It is also contended that number of family members of the petitioner were beaten by the police and they received serious injuries. It is further contended that it is a case of two versions and for the time being, the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for grant of bail before arrest. It is also contended that the petitioner is not involved in a criminal case falling within the prohibitory clause.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application of the petitioner on the ground that bail before arrest is meant to protect the innocent citizens and as the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the F.I.R. And fictitious stamps and forged identity card have been recovered from the petitioner, hence, he is not entitled to the relief as prayed for.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he prepared forged identity card in the presence of the complainant and F.I.R. No,290 of 2001 has been registered against him under the above-said provisions.., But another F.I.R. No,291 of 2001 has also been lodged against the petitioner and all other family members including the women on the allegation that they attacked the police party, and this F.I.R. Was lodged on the next day. On the other hand private complaint has been filed by the petitioner in which serious allegations have been levelled against the police officials that they took away valuable articles from the house of the petitioner and severe beating has been given to the family members of the petitioner and even to the women, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has summoned the police officials for facing of the trial. It has also been mentioned that right eye of one of the brothers of the petitioner has also been damaged. I have noticed that in case F.I.R. No,291 of 2001 registered subsequently at the same police station against the petitioner and other inmates of the house on the allegation that when the police party raided the house to arrest the petitioner in case F.I.R. No,290 of 2001 they were attacked at by the accused party, the petitioner was arrested, who also remained on physical remand with the police and the alleged recovery was also effected, but in spite of that his arrest has not been made in case F.I.R. No,290 of 2001, even he was released on bail after judicial remand. It seems that the arrest of the petitioner was not shown in the present case for some ulterior motives and mala fide intention on the part of the police to rearrests him, if allowed bail in case F.I.R. No,291 of 2001. In these circumstances, without going into the merits of this case, I observe that as the petitioner was earlier arrested in the case subsequently registered at the same police station, who also remained on physical remand with the police and the alleged recovery has already been effected, therefore, sending of the petitioner to jail again will serve no useful purpose for the prosecution, rather it will amount to humiliate the petitioner due to the conduct of the local police, above noticed. In these circumstances the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for the grant of bail before arrest. Thus, ad-interim pre-arrest bail, already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 26-12- 2001 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bqnds amounting to Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge, Okara.

' This petition is accepted.

Pre-arrest .