-Pre-arrest bail, grant of--Allegation of--Committed--Mischief at site while destroying Mallon Crop of complainant--The petitioners states that disputed land is in possession of petitioners that was reason later an FIR bearing No. 287 of 2023 was got registered by ..............

 PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 213

[Lahore High Court, Lahore]

Present: Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J.

RASHEED, etc--Petitioners

versus

STATE etc.--Respondents

Crl. Misc. No. 36421-B of 2023, decided on 5.7.2023.

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

----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV 1860), Ss. 506-B, 440, 148 & 149--Pre-arrest bail, grant of--Allegation of--Committed--Mischief at site while destroying Mallon Crop of complainant--The petitioners states that disputed land is in possession of petitioners that was reason later an FIR bearing No. 287 of 2023 was got registered by Petitioner No. 01 against complainant party with similar allegations of destroying his guava plants--Be that as it may, at present variant stances cannot be attended in these proceedings which could well be taken by trial Court after recording of evidence--Malafide on part of complainant to falsely involve petitioners in this case due to such dispute cannot be ruled out--That mala fide being a state of mind cannot always be proved through direct evidence, and it was often to be inferred from facts and circumstances of case--It has been further held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases--Pre-arrest bail application merits of case can be touched upon and benefit of doubt, if established, can be extended--In circumstances, apparently petitioners have made out case for pre-arrest bail.         [Para 3] A, B & C

PLD 2021 SC 708, 2021 SCMR 130 and 2022 SCMR 1424.

Mr. Muhammad Ijrar Haider, Advocate for Petitioners.

Mr. Aman Ullah Khan Niazi, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.

Rana Muhammad Ansar, Advocate for Complainant.

Date of hearing: 5.7.2023.

Order

Petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR bearing No. 164 dated 01.05.2023 registered under Sections 506-B/440/148/149, PPC at Police Station Saddar Chunian, District Kasur.

2. Heard. Record perused.

3. Petitioners were under the allegation that they have committed mischief at the site while destroying the Mallon crop of complainant but as a matter of course, no description of property is mentioned in the FIR where allegedly mischief was committed by the petitioners. Though learned counsel for the complainant tried to impress the Court while placing certain documents which were showing the ownership of complainant but when confronted that how these documents are relevant with the FIR, he states that it could not be mentioned in the FIR, as FIR cannot be termed as encyclopedia to contain minute details but the fact remains that the complainant was in possession over the property. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that disputed land is in possession of the petitioners that was the reason later an FIR bearing No. 287 of 2023 was got registered by Rasheed Ahmad, petitioner No. 01 against the complainant party with similar allegations of destroying his guava plants. Be that as it may, at present variant stances cannot be attended in these proceedings which could well be taken by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. Malafide on the part of complainant to falsely involve the petitioners in this case due to such dispute cannot be ruled out. Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as “Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser vs. The State and another” (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 708) has held that mala fide being a state of mind cannot always be proved through direct evidence, and it was often to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. It has been further held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases reported as “Khair Muhammad and another vs. The State through P.G. Punjab and another” (2021 SCMR 130), “Javed Iqbal versus The State through Prosecutor General of Punjab and another” (2022 SCMR 1424) that while deciding pre-arrest bail application merits of the case can be touched upon and benefit of doubt, if established, can be extended. In the circumstances, apparently the petitioners have made out the case for pre-arrest bail.

4. In the light of above circumstances, this petition is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of
Rs. 1,00,000/-(one lac) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

(A.A.K.)          Petition allowed