Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1805/B of 1981, decided on 22^ndAugust, 1981.

-- S. 498-A-Bail before arrest-Petitioner already admitted to bail and Police having ample time for completing investigation of case-- No reasonable grounds for believing petitioner being responsible for commission of theft of gas cylinders-Petitioner's arrest in circum stances, held, would simply humiliate him-Bail confirmed.

Muhammad Sardar v. State 1981 P Cr. L J 1157 ; Muhammad Bashir Siddiquie v. State 1977 P Cr. L J 385 and Sh. Zahoor Ahmad v. State P L D 1974 Lah. 256 ref.

Ch. Muhammad Farooq for Petitioner.

Sh. Nasim Hassan for the Complainant.

No one ever saw the petitioner committing the theft of the gas cylinders of the complainant who expressed a suspicion in the first informa tion report lodged on the 8th February, 1981, that the petitioner might have stolen the gas cylinders. The petitioner's applications addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Sialkot, that the Investigating Officer was not allowing him to join investigation are on the Police file. According to the petitioner the Investigating Officer wanted him to arrest, after the rejection of his applications for securing bail before arrest. The, petitioner did join the Police investigation on several occasions. According to him the police wants to humiliate him for ulterior motive by placing him under arrest though he is a respectable citizen having flourishing business.

2. The learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the obser vations made by this Court in Muhammad Sardar v. State (1981 P Cr. L J 1157) and Muhammad Bashir Siddiquie v. State (1977 P Cr. L J 385) that anticipatory bail could be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. In the precedent cases the accused had been specifically named and attributed specific role of com mission of theft and embezzlement. In the instant case there is no ocular evidence of commission of theft by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Sh. Zahoor Ahmad v. State (P L D 1974 Lah. 256) for advancing the petitioner's case for bail before arrest because according to him there was apprehension of harassment and undue humilitation by means of unjustified arrest by the Police which was acting for ulterior motives. The petitioner has already been admitted to interim bail before arrest by order of this Court, dated the 8th August, 1981. The Police had ample time for completing investigation of the case and the petitioner's arrest in the circumstances would simply humiliate him. There do not appear reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was responsible for commission of theft of the gas cylinders of the complainant. Bail before arrest already granted to him is confirmed. However, he will join investigation as and when called upon by the Investigating Police to do so.

Bail confirmed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.