Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL REHMAN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Syed Shabbar Raza RizviCh. M.S. Shad
2008 M L D 1370
2008 M L D 1370
[Lahore]
Before Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J
ABDUL REHMAN---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5134-B of 2008, decided on 27th June, 2008.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-B & 380---Bail, refusal of---Record showed that petitioner filed constitutional petition for quashment of the present F.I.R. which was disposed of by High Court with direction that Investigating Officer would investigate the same strictly in accordance with law, yet the petitioner filed another constitutional petition which was placed before another Bench of the High Court and prayed that proceedings in the present (same) F.I.R. i.e. the investigation be stopped---Effect---Such was a clear disobedience on part of the petitioner of the orders of the High Court passed in a constitutional petition wherein investigation was directed strictly on merits---How such an accused person/petitioner could expect extraordinary concession from the High Court---Bail was declined in circumstances.
1995 PCr.LJ 943; 1976 SCMR 157; 2007 PCr.LJ 1455 and 2006 PCr.LJ 692 distinguished.
Ch. M.S. Shad for Petitioner.
Imtiaz Hussain Khan Baloch for the Complainant.
Muhammad Adeel Aqil Mirza, DPG Punjab for the State with Hameedullah, S.-I.
ORDER
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---The learned counsel seeks pre-arrest bail of petitioner in F.I.R. No. 469 of 2007, dated 25-10-2007, under sections 365-B, 380, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Athara Hazari, District Jhang.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner and co-accused is that they forced their entry into the house of the complainant and forcibly took away his 15/16 years old daughter, Shakeela. According to the allegation, accused also took away cash and jewelry of different kinds.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the occurrence allegedly took place on 20-10-2007 but the same was reported on 25-10-2007, after delay of five days. The petitioner had contracted Nikah with Mst. Shakeela prior to the registration of F.I.R. i.e. on 16-10-2007. On record, a complaint is available which was filed by Mst. Shakeela against the complainant of the F.I.R., etc. The learned counsel also referred to Writ Petition No.11614 of 2007 which was disposed of by me on 5-12-2007 with direction to the police that version of the accused and Mst. Shakeela be recorded but police instead of recording version of Mst. Shakeela and petitioner, handed over custody of Mst. Shakeela to the complainant and, thereafter, procured her statement under coercion according to the wishes of the complainant.
4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that investigation in this case is complete and the petitioner has been found guilty. According to them, case filed by Mst. Shakeela was dismissed on account of non-prosecution and in habeas corpus petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. Mst. Shakeela made a statement against the petitioner whereby alleging that she was abducted by the petitioner as stated in the F.I.R.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mst. Shakeela was handed over by police to the complainant and thereafter she changed her stance but the record shows that the petitioner had filed a petition under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. before the ex-Justice of the Peace whereby a direction was issued to recover Mst. Shakeela from the custody of the complainant. She was produced before the learned Sessions Judge on 9-4-2008 and her statement was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, which is as under: --
"Abdul Rehman is not related to me in any manner. I am living with my parents. I am un-married. No body has been preventing me from going anywhere. None has detained me."
After recording her statement, Mst. Shakeela was allowed to go with her parents by the learned Sessions Judge as she wished. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.425-11/2008 which was also dismissed in limine vide order, dated 12-5-2008. Thus, hi the presence of the above record, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mst. Shakeela was forcibly removed from the petitioner and handed over to the complainant cannot be attached much credence. The record also shows that Writ Petition No.11614 of 2007 was also filed by the petitioner for quashment of the instant F.I.R. which was disposed of by me with direction that Investigating Officer would investigate the same strictly in accordance with law, yet petitioner filed another Writ Petition No.5188 of 2008, which was placed before another Bench and prayed that proceedings in the instant F.I.R. i.e. investigation be stopped. That is clear disobedience on part of the petitioner of orders this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 11614 of 2007, wherein investigation was directed strictly on merit. Such an accused person/petitioner still expects extraordinary concession from this Court.
6. The record also shows that more than once petitioner filed application for pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang. His applications, each time, were dismissed on account of non prosecution. Reference may be made to order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang, dated 18-4-2008, order, dated 9-6-2008 whereby proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. were also initiated. The learned counsel has cited three judgments i.e. 1995, PCr.LJ 943, 1976 SCMR 157 and 2007 PCr.LJ 1455 which relate to post-arrest bail applications. Everyone knows that consideration for post-arrest and pre-arrest bails are different, hence it is observed that above citations are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The learned counsel has referred to 2006 PCr.LJ 692 which relates to pre-arrest bail. In the above case, no direct role was 'attributed to the accused, whereas, the petitioner is the principal accused in the instant case. In the above case, the abductee had also exonerated the accused persons from commission of the offence and abductee also verified the Nikah with the accused, whereas, in the instant case, as noted above, Mst. Shakeela declined Nikah with petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, hence facts and circumstances of this case are also distinguishable from the present case.
7. In view of the above detailed reasoning, this application for pre-arrest bail is dismissed.
M.B.A./A-73/L Application dismissed.