2010 PLP 2044 (YLR)

RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.

Mukhtar Hussain son of Taj Muhammad, who is complainant in case F.I.R. No.151, dated 23-4-2008, registered with Police Station Tulamba, District Khanewal, for offences under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v)/34, P.P.C., by filing this petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. seeks cancellation of pre-arrest bail allowed to Ijaz and Shahbaz sons of Muhammad Aslam (respondents Nos.2 and 3), by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianchannu vide order dated 19-5-2008.

2. Briefly the allegation against respondents Nos. 2 and 3, according to the F.I.R., was that they while armed with a dagger and an iron punch assaulted Taj Muhammad, father of the complainant; Ijaz delivered him a dagger blow on his right leg, whereas Shahbaz inflicted him an iron punch blow on his nose and their unknown accused caused him Sota blows, which landed on his right arm and wrist.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondents are nominated in the F.I.R. with specific roles of causing injuries to Taj Muhammad; that as the contents of the F.I.R. are corroborated by medical evidence, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail and that the order dated 19-5-2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is perverse.

4. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 as well as the learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the State supports the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge by contending that there is contradiction in the contents of the F.I.R. and the medical evidence inasmuch as Injury No.2 on the left leg below the knee does not find mention in the F.I.R. and that Ijaz respondent was declared innocent during investigation vide Zimni No. 5, dated 12-5-2008.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned order, it has been observed that although the respondents were nominated in the F.I.R., but admittedly Ijaz to whom injury on the right leg of the injured P.W. has been attributed has been found to be innocent during the course of investigation. Injury No.2 on the left leg below the knee does not find mention in the F.I.R. and similar was the position of Injury No.3 Challan has been submitted before the Court on 20-5-2008 and since granting of bail, there was no complaint against the respondents for misusing the said concession. Even otherwise, true import of the allegations against the respondents will be determined at the time of trial after recording of some material evidence. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given elaborate reasons for allowing bail to the respondents. For a bail granting order to be eligible to be interfered with under section 497(5), Cr.P.C., the same has to be arbitrary, absurd or fanciful. The discretion left in the Court under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. is pari materia with the principles, which apply to the setting aside of the orders of acquittal. Reference may be made to the cases of Mian Dad v. The State and another 1992 SCMR 1286 and Muhammad Tayyab v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ

597. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any such illegality or absurdity in the impugned order so as to warrant interference by this Court.

6. Resultantly, there being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. H.B.T./M-367/L Petition dismissed.