PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 212
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, J.
MUHAMMAD SHAKIR, etc.--Petitioners
versus
STATE etc--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 1633-B of 2023, decided on 29.3.2023.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----Ss. 497(2) & 498--Pre-arrest bail, grant of--Vicarious liability--Allegation of--Armed with weapons demolished wall of residential area and committed of bricks--Delay in FIR--Further inquiry--The place of occurrence is admittedly a joint land between parties and while keeping in view settled principle of law that each and every co-sharer is presumed to be owner-in-possession of each and every inch of joint land, alleged complicity of petitioners requires further probe & inquiry particularly when contents of FIR do not disclose role of each & every petitioner separately--It is also worth mentioning here that civil litigation in shape of civil suit is also pending adjudication wherein Court below has also issued injunctive order--Prima facie, matter between parties is also of civil nature, to which complainant intends to convert into criminal--All these considerations surely render case against petitioners one of further inquiry into their guilt and chances of petitioners’ false implication after deliberation cannot be ruled out--Petition allowed.
[Para 4] A
2010 SCMR 949 & 2012 SCMR 1137.
Pre-arrest bail--
----Principle--It is an established principle of law that while granting pre-arrest bail, merits of case can be touched upon by Court.
[Para 4] B
PLD 1989 SC 347, PLD 2021 SC 898, 2022 SCMR 1424 &
2022 SCMR 1271.
Post-arrest bail--
----It is also settled law that If accused have a good case for post arrest bail, plea of complainant to send them behind bars for few days by dismissing their application for pre-arrest bail was held to be ludicrous. [Para 4] C
2000 YLR 1341 & 2012 PCr.LJ 430.
Vicarious liability--
----Matter of vicarious liability, it would be seen at time of trial after recording evidence. [Para 5] D
2015 YLR 2441 & 1981 SCMR 1092.
Mr. Muhammad Naeem Ullah Khan, Advocate with Petitioners.
Mr. Ansar Yaseen, DPG on behalf of State.
Malik Muhammad Waqas Raheem, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 29.3.2023.
Order
By filing instant petition under Section 498, Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 33/2023 dated 14.01.2023, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 511, 379, 148, 149 of PPC with the Police Station Shaher Sultan, District Muzaffargarh.
2. As per FIR, the allegation against the petitioners is that -on 24.11.2022 at about 08:00 p.m, the petitioners while armed with respective weapons demolished the wall of the residential area of the complainant and also committed theft of 3000 bricks.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Perusal of record shows that the alleged occurrence took place on 24.11.2022 whereas the same was reported to the police on 14.01.2023 i.e. with an inordinate delay of one month and twenty days. The close relationship of the parties is also admitted. The place of occurrence is admittedly a joint land between the parties and while keeping in view the settled principle of law that each and every co-sharer is presumed to be owner-in-possession of each and every inch of the joint land, the alleged complicity of the petitioners requires further probe & inquiry particularly when the contents of FIR do not disclose the role of each & every petitioner separately. It is also worth mentioning here that civil litigation in shape of civil suit titled “Muhammad Jamal vs Hazoor Bux, etc..” is also pending adjudication wherein the learned Court below has also issued injunctive order dated 20.12.2022. Prima facie, matter between the parties is also of civil nature, to which the complainant intends to convert into criminal. All these considerations surely render the case against the petitioners one of further inquiry into their guilt and chances of petitioners’ false implication after deliberation cannot be ruled out. Reliance can be placed on the case titled “Nadeem alias Nanha alias Billa Sher v. The State” (2010 SCMR 949). “Ehsan Ullah vs. The State” (2012 SCMR 1137). It is an established principle of law that while granting pre-arrest bail, merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court, Reliance is placed on “Miran Bux vs. The State” (PLD 1989 SC 347), “Sajid Hussain @ Joji vs. The State” (PLD 2021 SC 898), “Javed Iqbal vs. The State” (2022 SCMR 1424) & “Muhammad liaz vs. The State” (2022 SCMR 1271). Petitioners have joined the investigation. It is also settled law that If accused have a good case for post arrest bail, the plea of the complainant to send them behind the bars for few days by dismissing their application for pre-arrest bail was held to be ludicrous. Reliance is made upon Muhammad Aslam versus The State (2000 YLR 1341) and Nazar Muhammad and 2 others v. the State (2012 P.Cr.L.J. 430).
5. As far as the matter of vicarious liability, it would be seen at the time of trial after recording the evidence. Guidance is sought from Muhammad Azeem and others v. the State and others (2015 YLR 2441) and Munawar v. The State (1981 SCMR 1092).
6. For the above reasons, without touching other merits of this case, this petition is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.
(A.A.K.) Petition accepted
0 Comments