Muhammad Hanif Arrest)

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No. _____________B/2002 Muhammad Hanif S/o Sakhi Muhammad, caste Rajpoort, R/o 86/ML, Tehsil Kahror Pakka, District Layya. ……PETITIONER

VERSUS The State.

……RESPONDENT

PRE-ARREST BAIL PETITION U/S 498 CR.P.C. In Case: F.I.R. No. U/s: P.S.

168/2002 Dated: 380/411 P.P.C. Fateh Pur (Layyah)

18.7.02

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citation. 2.

That as per contents of the F.I.R., it is the allegation against the petitioner that he committed theft of medicines amounting to Rs. 600/- from the Govt. Rural Dispensary Chak No. 86/ML, where the petitioner is working as Ward Servant, which is mere an allegation against the petitioner. Copy of F.I.R. is attached as Annex “A”, whereas better copy is Annex “A/1”.

3.

That the petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail inter-alia on the following: GROUNDS i)

That the petitioner is innocent and roped up in this case under the personal enmity and political rivalry.

ii)

That the case is prima facie a conspiracy against the petitioner and collusion between the police and the complainant.

iii)

That the contents of the F.I.R. are not giving ingredients of any offence, thus no case prima facie made out against the petitioner.

iv)

That it is a case of private recovery, which is always deprecated by the superior courts.

v)

That on the face of it, it is a case of no evidence, even no reference of witnesses is quoted in the F.I.R.

vi)

That as per narration of the F.I.R., the person of the petitioner is no more required for the purpose of recovery or further investigation.

vii)

That

after

registration

of

the

case,

the

Dispenser/Incharge concerned dispensary issued a certificate that no such shortage was found either in stock or in record. Copy of certificate is Annex “B”. viii) That previously, a complaint having the story that the petitioner had adopted the illegal practice, was addressed to Zila Nazim, by the M. Mahmood Khan Naib Zila Nazim Union Council No. 18, which was forwarded to E.D.O. (Health). This application was further forwarded to the office of the respondent No. 2 for the registration of this case. During the inquiry, Lambardar and respectables of concerned area made statements in favour of the petitioner and the complaint was turned down. ix)

That the local police has no authority to register a case against a public servant in connection with his official responsibilities.

x)

That the petitioner is previous non-convict and having no record as well.

xi)

That the petitioner has a blotless service of 12 years in his credit.

xii)

That the local police in connivance with complainant and under the political pressure is adamant to arrest the petitioner. The petitioner belongs to poor but a respectable family and his arrest will cause humiliation and harassment along-with irreparable loss to him.

xiii) That the petitioner tried his level’s best to get the same relief from the court of first instance, but being encircled by the police and complainant party, it was not possible for the petitioner. Hence, he was forced to approach this court directly. In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the petition in hand may please be accepted and the petitioner may graciously be blessed with the concession of prearrest bail. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be granted in the interest of justice. Humble Petitioner, Dated: ________

Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, that this is the first pre-arrest bail petition moved by the petitioner. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No. _____________B/2002 Muhammad Hanif

Vs

The State

INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES 1

Urgent Form

2

Bail Petition affidavit.

3

Copy of F.I.R. alongwith better copy.

4

Copy of certificate.

5

Dispensation Application.

6

Affidavit.

7

Power of attorney.

A & A/1 B

PETITIONER, Dated: __________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. ____________/2002 In Crl. Misc. No. _____________B/2002 Muhammad Hanif

Vs

The State

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. ========================================= Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the above-titled application is being filed before this Hon’ble Court, the contents of which should be considered as part & parcel of the main petition. 2. That certified copies of Annexes “

” are not readily

available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of the original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. APPLICANT, Dated: __________ Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. ____________/2002 In Crl. Misc. No. _______B/2002 Muhammad Hanif

Vs

The State

DISPENSATION APPLICATION AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Hanif S/o Sakhi Muhammad, caste Rajpoort, R/o 86/ML, Tehsil Kahror Pakka, District Layya.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of July 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No. _______B/2002 Muhammad Hanif

Vs.

The State

AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Hanif S/o Sakhi Muhammad, caste Rajpoort, R/o 86/ML, Tehsil Kahror Pakka, District Layya.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1.

That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citation.

2.

That as per contents of the F.I.R., it is the allegation against the petitioner that he committed theft of medicines amounting to Rs. 600/- from the Govt. Rural Dispensary Chak No. 86/ML, where the petitioner is working as Ward Servant, which is mere an allegation against the petitioner. Copy of F.I.R. is attached as Annex “A”, whereas better copy is Annex “A/1”.

3.

That the petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail inter-alia on the following: GROUNDS i)

That the petitioner is innocent and roped up in this case under the personal enmity and political rivalry.

ii)

That the case is prima facie a conspiracy against the petitioner and collusion between the police and the complainant.

iii)

That the contents of the F.I.R. are not giving ingredients of any offence, thus no case prima facie made out against the petitioner.

iv)

That it is a case of private recovery, which is always deprecated by the superior courts.

v)

That on the face of it, it is a case of no evidence, even no reference of witnesses is quoted in the F.I.R.

vi)

That as per narration of the F.I.R., the person of the petitioner is no more required for the purpose of recovery or further investigation.

vii)

That

after

registration

of

the

case,

the

Dispenser/Incharge concerned dispensary issued a certificate that no such shortage was found either in stock or in record. Copy of certificate is Annex “B”. viii) That previously, a complaint having the story that the petitioner had adopted the illegal practice, was addressed to Zila Nazim, by the M. Mahmood Khan Naib Zila Nazim Union Council No. 18, which was forwarded to E.D.O. (Health). This application was further forwarded to the office of the respondent No. 2 for the registration of this case. During the inquiry, Lambardar and respectables of concerned area made statements in favour of the petitioner and the complaint was turned down. ix)

That the local police has no authority to register a case against a public servant in connection with his official responsibilities.

x)

That the petitioner is previous non-convict and having no record as well.

xi)

That the petitioner has a blotless service of 12 years in his credit.

xii)

That the local police in connivance with complainant and under the political pressure is adamant to arrest the petitioner. The petitioner belongs to poor but a respectable family and his arrest will cause humiliation and harassment along-with irreparable loss to him.

xiii) That the petitioner tried his level’s best to get the same relief from the court of first instance, but being encircled by the police and complainant party, it was not possible for the petitioner. Hence, he was forced to approach this court directly.

DEPONENT

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of July 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT