PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 162
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, J.
AMJAD SHABAB alias AMJAD HUSSAIN--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 1879-B of 2024, decided on 24.4.2024.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----S. 506(b)--Punishment for criminal intimidation--Danger simpliciter does not establish criminal intimidation except if it is proposed to cause or causes an individual or any one in whom he is intrigued to do any demonstration which he lawfully will undoubtedly do, or to discard to do any demonstration which that individual is legitimately qualified for do, as method for keeping away from execution of such danger--In current case no such condition is referenced in FIR--Hence is doubtful whether offence under Section 506 (b) PPC is made out. [Para 6] A
1988 PCr.LJ 270 Lahore, 2010 MLD 291 Lahore & 2011 PCr.LJ 615.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 506-B, 448, 511, 148 & 149--Pre-arrest bail, grant of--Allegation of--Armed with weapons trespassed into PTCL exchange, extended threats of dire consequences and forcibly disrupted communication system--No specific role assigned--The above facts lead High Court to draw an inference that prima facie, prosecution lacks sufficient incriminating material to connect petitioner with commission of alleged offences and chances of petitioner’s false implication in instant case with deliberation after consultation cannot be ruled out--Concession of pre-arrest bail being an extra ordinary relief is to be granted to protect innocent persons from victimization and humiliation at hands of police through abuse of law for ulterior motive--Held: It is also settled law that if accused has a good case for post arrest bail, plea of complainant to send him behind bars for few days by dismissing his application for pre-arrest bail was held to be ludicrous--Petition allowed. [Para 7] B & C
2000 YLR 1314 & 2012 PCr.LJ 430.
Mr. Muhammad Jaffar Tayyar Advocate and Mr. Syed Asad Abbas Shah Advocate with petitioner.
Mr. Hassan Mehmood Khan Tareen, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Mr. Muhammad Ali Dhol, Advocate vice counsel for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 24.4.2024.
Order
Petitioner being accused in FIR No. 656 dated 11.07.2023, registered at Police Station Saddar Burewala, District Vehari in respect of offences under Sections 506-B, 448, 511, 148/149 PPC has sought pre-arrest bail on the grounds that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive.
2. Briefly, the allegation against the petitioner as per the contents of FIR is that, on 07.07.2023 the petitioner alongwith his co-accused while armed with their respective weapons trespassed into PTCL Exchange and they extended threats of dire consequences and forcibly disrupted communication system. Hence this case.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Record has been perused and as per the prosecution version, no effective or specific role has been assigned to the present petitioner rather a joint role has been attributed to the petitioner and others. Moreover, no one has sustained any injury at the hands of the petitioner. Except Section 506(B) PPC, the offences with which the petitioner has been charged are bailable in nature. There is a question as to whether the provisions of Section 506 (b) PPC are attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. “Criminal Intimidation” is defined in Section 503 PPC which reads as under:
“503. Criminal intimidation. 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.”
5. Similarly, the punishment of criminal intimidation is provided under section 506 P.P.C. which have two parts and, for the convenience, are reproduced as under:
“506. Punishment for criminal intimidation Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.: And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastely to a woman shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”..
6. An uncovered scrutiny of above segment shows that danger simpliciter does not establish criminal intimidation except if it is proposed to cause or causes an individual or any one in whom he is intrigued to do any demonstration which he lawfully will undoubtedly do, or to discard to do any demonstration which that individual is legitimately qualified for do, as the method for keeping away from execution of such danger. In the current case no such condition is referenced in the FIR. Hence, it is doubtful whether the offence under Section 506(b) PPC is made out. I fortified my view from the case laws reported as “Syed Ali Asghar Shah v. The State” (1988 P.Cr.L.J 270 Lahore), “Manzoor Ahmad and others v. The State” (2010 MLD 291 Lahore), and “Muhammad Riaz alias Dinga and others v. The State and another” (2011 PCr.LJ 615).
7. The above facts lead this Court to draw an inference that prima facie, the prosecution lacks sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offences and chances of petitioner’s false implication in the instant case with deliberation after consultation cannot be ruled out. The concession of pre-arrest bail being an extra ordinary relief is to be granted to protect the innocent persons from the victimization and humiliation at the hands of police through abuse of law for ulterior motive. It is also settled law that if accused has a good case for post arrest bail, the plea of the complainant to send him behind the bars for few days by dismissing his 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).
8. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General as well as the learned counsel for the complainant has failed to point out any exceptional circumstance which could dis-entitle the petitioner from discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.
9. As a corollary of above-said discussion, 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. 100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trail Court. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the supra mentioned observations are tentative in nature and the same are strictly confined to the disposal of instant bail application.
(A.A.K.) Petition accepted
0 Comments