Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZULFIQAR ALI VS Respondent: STATE
1999 Y L R 455
1999 Y L R 455
[Lahore]
Before Raja Muhammad Khurshid, J
ZULFIQAR ALI ‑‑‑ Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1219/B of 1999, decided on 5th March, 1999.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.498‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.380‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail ‑‑‑Pendency of a civil suit in respect of the ownership of the property could not give a licence to a party to the suit to take law into its own hands‑‑ Accused was named in the FI.R. with a specific role of stealing the building material after having demolished the boundary wall of the building in dispute‑‑‑Record did not show that the F.I.R., was actuated by any malice on the part of the complainant or that the police had acted with ulterior motive to register the case against the accused‑‑ Recovery of stolen articles was yet to be effected from the accused and investigation should be allowed to rake its usual course‑‑ Accused, after dismissal of his application for bail before arrest by Sessions Court, instead of surrendering to the custody of Court slipped away‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail was refused to accused in circumstances.
Muhammad Aslam Khan Buttar for Petitioner.
ORDER
A case under section 380, P.P.C.; is registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R., No.479 of 1998, dated 26‑11‑1998 at Police Station, South Cantt., Lahore.
2. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner demolished the outer wall of the property in question and took away the bricks and other building material lying therein. The petitioner applied for bail before arrest, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order dated 11‑2‑1999 on the ground that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. and a specific role was attributed to him in stealing the building material after demolishing boundary walls of the premises in question. The stolen property was yet to be recovered from the‑ petitioner and since there was no mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the confirmation of interim pre- arrest bail granted to him. The petition was accordingly rejected.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not take into account that in fact the premises in question belonged to the petitioner and that a civil litigation about the matter in issue was pending in a Civil Court in which stay order has already been issued. It was, therefore, submitted that the matter being of a civil nature, the learned Additional Sessions Judge fell in error to dismiss the petition for pre-arrest bail.
4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that mere pendency of a civil suit in respect of the ownership of the property would not give a licence to a party to the suit to take law into ones hands.
According to the F.I.R., the petitioner has demolished the boundary wall of the building in question and took away the windows, doors and bricks etc., lying therein. There is nothing on record to show that the F.I.R. was actuated by any malice on the part of the complainant or that the police had acted with ulterior motive to register the case against the petitioner. In such a situation, and particularly when the petitioner is named in the F. I. R., and a specific role is attributed to him for stealing the building material after demolishing the boundary wall, the investigation should be allowed to take its usual course as according to the statement of the Investigating Officer before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, recovery of the stolen articles was yet to be effected. As such the petitioner has no vested right to seek pre-arrest bail particularly when he has already unsuccessfully invoked the jurisdiction of the Court of concurrent jurisdiction in this matter. The bail petition was dismissed by the Court below on 11‑2‑1999, but instead of surrendering to the; custody of the Court, the petitioner remained away till the date he filed the present petition.
5. In view of the foregoing facts, the petitioner has no case for pre-arrest bail and his bail petition is dismissed in limine.
N.H.Q./Z‑76/L Prearrest bail refused.