Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 2632‑B and 2734‑B of 1986, decided on 13th October, 1986.
‑‑‑Ss. 497(2) & 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 381‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, grant of‑‑Order of High Court passed in writ petition of complainant misconstrued by Police and complainant‑‑Investigating Officer submitting report in writ petition regarding allegations against accused to be false, and that the confession was obtained under coercion and undue influence by complainant‑‑Writ petition consequently dismissed‑‑Police in connivance with complainant with mala fide intention registering criminal case against accused‑‑On the plea that High Court had ordered in the writ petition that a case be registered against the accused, it was held that allegations contained in F.I.R., would require further inquiry within meaning of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. and that criminal case against accused was based on mala fides‑‑Interim anticipatory bail confirmed in circumstances.
Yousaf Kazmi for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2632‑B of 1986).
Muhammad Siddique for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2734‑B of 1986).
Mehr Khan Muhammad Vehniwal for the State.
This order shall dispose of two criminal miscellaneous petitions for anticipatory bail, viz Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2632‑B of 1986, filed by Muhammad Ali, Allah Bakhsh and Muhammad Yasin and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2734‑B of 1986 filed by Muhammad Siddique Abid, Both the bail petitions arise out of F. I. R. No. 245, dated 6‑6‑1986 registered at Police Station, Shahadra G. T. Road Lahore. As per contents of the F.I.R. the petitioners are accused of the offence punishable under section 381, P.P.C. It has been alleged that Muhammad Siddique Abid petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2734‑B of 1986, was employed as Store Keeper by Haji Wali Muhammad complainant at his shop of pesticides. The complainant, got involved in his election campaign and in his absence Muhammad Siddique Abid with the connivance of other petitioners, who also dealt in the same business in the contiguous shop stole away pesticides worth more than Rupees six lacs. In both the under consideration miscellaneous petitions vide this Court's order, dated 29‑9‑1986 and 7‑10‑1986, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 2632‑B of 1986 and 2734‑B of 1986, respectively, the petitioners have been granted interim bail before arrest.
After notice to the State and the complainant, the petitions have come up today for final disposal.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the offence allegedly took place in early 1985, while the case has been registered as late as June 1986 i.e. about 11 years after the occurrence. It has further been urged that earlier the complainant filed a writ petition before this Court seeking direction to the police for registration of the case, but after obtaining report from the concerned S.H.O. the High Court dismissed the writ petition and observed that if so advised, the complainant could have recourse to a private complaint. But it has been alleged in the F.I.R. that while dismissing the writ petition the High Court ordered that a case be registered. This contention is not supported by the contents of this Court's order, dated 25‑5‑1986, passed in Writ Petition No. 1684 of 1986.
3. On behalf of the State it has been argued that delay has been fully explained iii the F.I.R itself, inasmuch as the complainant approached the police immediately when he came to know of the shortage of his stock but the local police declined to register the case. He submitted an application to the I.‑G. Police, Punjab, but without any success and ultimately he had, to have recourse to a constitutional petition before the High Court.
4. Regarding the second contention, of course, the learned counsel for the State, has not been able to offer any explanation as to under what circumstances the complainant as also the police misconstrued the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. It transpired from the contents of the order, dated 25‑5‑1986, passed in the writ petition that the High Court directed the S.H.O. Shahdara to submit his report regarding the allegations contained in the writ petition and the S.H.O after necessary probe reported that the complainant obtained confession from Muhammad Siddiq regarding breach of trust and misappropriation in the stock under coercion and undue influence and that the allegations levelled by the complainant in the writ petition were false and that no criminal case was made out. Consequently the writ petition was dismissed. It was, however, observed that the petitioner (complainant), if so advised, could have recourse to a private complaint. It appears that subsequently, for reasons best known to the police, they connived with the complainant and with mala fide intention misconstrued the order of the Court and registered the criminal case giving rise to the present bail petitions. It thus becomes evident that the allegation contained in F.I.R. No. 245, dated 6‑6‑1986, require further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and that the criminal case registered against the petitioners is based on mala fides. In this view of the matter, the interim orders, dated 29‑9‑1986 and 7‑10‑1986, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2632‑B of 1986 and No. 2734‑B of 1986, respectively, allowing interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners are confirmed.
S.A. /M‑15/L. Interim bail confirmed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer