Ss. 503 & 506--Pre-arrest bail, grant of--Allegation of--Criminal intimidation--Alleged threats simpliciter in case, were not for compelling son ..............

 PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 75

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 503 & 506--Pre-arrest bail, grant of--Allegation of--Criminal intimidation--Alleged threats simpliciter in case, were not for compelling son of complainant and complainant to do anything which they were not legally bound to do or refrain from doing anything which they were authorized to do, therefore, basic element of criminal intimidation is missing in case, hence, offence defined u/S. 503, PPC and punishable under Section: 506, PPC is not prima facie made out which fact reflects that there are no reasonable grounds to connect petitioners with commission of alleged offence; however, insistence of investigating officer of case for arrest of accused-petitioners in aforementioned circumstances is itself sufficient to establish malafide on part of prosecution; in this regard--Bail allowed.

                                                                                             [Para 2] A

PLD 2021 SC 708 ref.

Rai Ashfaq Ahmad Kharal, Advocate alongwith Petitioners.

Ch. Muhammad Mustafa, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.

Rana Mazhar Ali Khan, Advocate for Complainant.

Date of hearing: 13.9.2021.

 PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 75
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Farooq Haider, J.
UMAR FAROOQ and another--Petitioners
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 35932-B of 2021, decided on 13.9.2021.

Order

Through instant petition, Umar Farooq and Muhammad Usman (petitioners/accused) have sough pre-arrest bail in case arising out of F.I.R. No. 332/2021 dated 24.04.2021 registered under Sections 506-B, 34, PPC at Police Station Sadar Muridke, District Sheikhupura.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and going through the available record with their able assistance, it has been noticed that precisely allegation leveled in the FIR is that petitioners issued threats simplicities to son of the complainant and thereafter to complainant; relevant portion of the F.I.R. is hereby reproduced:--

بخدمت جناب SHO صاحب تھانہ صدر مرید کے جناب عالی ! گزارش ہیکہ سائل گاوں سیکھم کا رہائیشی ہے اور مونجی کا منی شیلر لگایا ہوا ہے۔ سائل کا رکشہ لوڈر ، چاول اور گندم چوری ہوئے تھے جس کا سائل نے مقدمہ نمبر1 2/16 جرم 380/457 ت پ تھانہ صدر مرید کے درج کروایا تھا اس بابت سائل کو مختلف لوگوں پر شک تھا اپنے بھتیجوں 1- عمر فاروق 2- محمد عثمان پسران خالد محمود قوم رحمانی سکنہ سیکھم پر بھی شبہ تھا تو میں ان سے مورخہ 17.04.2021 کو قسم نیاں مانگا تو وہ طیش میں آگئے اور گھر سے دستی پسٹل لیکر میرے بیٹے محمد سعید کو گلی میں روک کر میرے بیٹے پر دستی پسٹل تان کر دھمکی دی کہ آج ہم نے تیرے باپ کو قتل کر دینا ہے اور ہم قتل کرنے جارہے ہیں اور دھمکیاں دیتے ہوئے میرے شیلر پر آگئے اور غلیظ گالیاں دینے لگے کہ باہر نکلو ہم نے تمہیں جان سے ماردینا ہے میں نے اپنی جان بچاتے ہوئے کمرہ کو بند کر لیا اسی دوران مسمیان شہباز حسین ولد محمد عنائیت سکنہ سیکھم 2- محمد وسیم ولد عبد المجيد قوم رحمانی سکنہ سیکھم نے ملزمان کی منت سماجت کی تو ملزمان اسلحہ لہراتے ہوئے اور سنگین نتائج کی دھمکیاں دیتے ہوئے وہاں سے چلے گئے۔ "

It is important to mention here that criminal intimidation has bheen defied under Section 503, PPC, which is hereby reproduced for ready reference:

“whoever threatens another with an injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. “ (emphasis added)

Alleged threats simpliciter in the case, were not for compelling the son of the complainant and the complainant to do anything which they were not legally bound to do or refrain from doing anything which they were authorized to do, therefore, the basic element of criminal intimidation is missing in the case, hence, offence defined under Section: 503, PPC and punishable under Section: 506, PPC is not prima facie made out which fact reflects that there are no reasonable grounds to connect the petitioners with the commission of alleged offence; however, insistence of the investigating officer of the case for arrest of the accused-petitioners in the aforementioned circumstances is itself sufficient to establish malafide on part of prosecution; in this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of “Shahzada Qaisar Arfat alias Qaiser versus The State and another” (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 708); relevant portions whereof are hereby reproduced: -

“4………………….

 The learned High Court did not appreciate that the “malafide “ being a state of mind cannot always be proved through direct evidence, and it is often to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.²”

“6. The power of the High Courts and the Courts of Sessions to grant pre-arrest bail, first and foremost, must be examined in the constitutional context of liberty, dignity, due process and fair trial. Pre-arrest bail is in the nature of a check on the police power to arrest a person. The non-availability of incriminating material against the accused or non-existence of a sufficient ground including a valid purpose⁴ for making arrest of the accused person in a case by the investigating officer would as a corollary be a ground for admitting the accused to pre-arrest bail, and vice versa⁵ Reluctance of the Courts in admitting the accused persons to pre-arrest bail by treating such a relief as an extraordinary one without examining whether there is sufficient incriminating material available on record to connect the accused with the commission of the alleged offence and for what purpose his arrest and detention is required during investigation or trial of the case, and their insistence only on showing malafide on part of the complainant or the Police for granting pre-arrest bail does not appear to be correct, especially after recognition of the right to fair trial as a fundamental right under Article 10A of Constitution of Pakistan, 1973⁶. Protection against arbitrary arrest and detention is part of the right to liberty and fair trial.⁷ This Court has, in many cases⁸ granted pre-arrest bail to accused persons after finding that there are no reasonable grounds for believing their involvement in the commission of the alleged offences and has not required independent proof of malafide on part of the Police or the complainant before granting such relief⁹ Despite non-availability of the incriminating material against the accused, his implication by the complainant and the insistence of the Police to arrest him are the circumstances which by themselves indicate the malafide on the part of the complainant and the Police, and the accused need not lead any other evidence to prove malafide on their part.

(emphasis added).

3. In view of what has been discussed above, instant petition filed by the petitioners for grant of pre-arrest bail in the case, is allowed, ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to him by this Court vide order dated 07.06.2021 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court within a period of fifteen days from today.

4. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.

(A.A.K.)          Bail allowed