MUHAMMAD PERVAIZ and anothers vs THE STATE

ORDER

' Muhammad Pervaiz and Umar Hayat, the petitioners through the instant petition seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,98, dated 30-3-2003 under sections 399/402, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Mumtazabad, District Multan.

2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case as contained in the F.I.R. Are that on 30-3-2003 at about 8-15 p.m. Muhammad Nasrullah, Inspector, S.H.O. Police Station Mumtazabad, District Multan alongwith Muhammad Akram, S.-I. Muhammad Afzal, A.S.-I., Abdul Rehman, Constable. Tariq lqbal, Constable, Ghulam Abbas, Constable, Muhammad Hassan, Constable, Muhammad Hashim.

Constable, Muhammad Nawaz, Constable, Iftikhar Hussain, Constable and Ali Ahmad, Constable in official vehicle No,5305/MNU driven by Mushtaq Ahmad, Constable was present at head "Dmari" for patrol and checking of crimes. He received secret information there that five persons armed with lethal weapons were standing behind the wall towards the left of the road within the area of Mauza Chatnalaywali Mauza Bhakal Bhair on old Dunyapur Road, in order to commit dacoity. He (Inspector) thereupon arranged a raiding party and raided there. They found there five persons present with lethal weapons. They encircled them and apprehended them. They were Abdul Haque, Zulfiqar Ali, Muhammad Pervaiz. Umar Hayat and Muhammad Asif. They recovered weapons from them. Abdul Haque and Zulfiqar had shoper with them. Two police uniforms and a cotton chord were recovered from the same.

3. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in to show efficiency on the part of the police; that they had not at all committed any offence; and that they are behind the bars since their arrest and are previous non-convicts.

4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R.: and that the offence against them falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.

6. As per the allegation contained in the F.I.R., they had assembled at the abovesaid place while armed with lethal weapons in order to commit dacoity. The said allegation, even if, may be taken as true, the same falls under section 402, P.P.C. The offence under the same is not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

7. Hence the question of application of offence under section 399, P.P.C. In the instant case needs consideration. Hence, the case against them is also covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Requiring further inquiry into their guilt.

8. They are behind the bars since their arrest and stated to be previous non-convicts.

9. In these circumstances, I find them entitled to bail.

10. The petition, therefore, is accepted and they are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail Bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate/trial Court.