2006 PLP 2068 (YLR)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Through this application the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail of respondents Nos.2 and 3 granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari vide order dated 6-6-2005.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is complainant of case F.I.R. No.53 of 2005, dated 27-3-2005 registered under sections 324/34, P.P.C. and subsequently offences under sections 337-F(v)/109, P.P.C. were added. According to the complainant/petitioner, he was running a pesticide shop and on the fateful day he went towards his shop on a car from his house. In the way he was intercepted by two unknown parsons riding on a motorcycle without registration and armed with fire-arms, who fired at the complainant hitting on different parts of his body. The complainant fell on the ground after receiving the said injuries.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents Nos.2 and 3 were his political enemies, who had hired the main culprits and on their abetment the present occurrence took place, but bail before arrest has been granted to them, which is meant to protect innocent citizens, if they are found to have been involved in a criminal case with mala fide intention and ulterior motives while in this case no mala fide was pointed out by the respondents for their false implication. It is also contended that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the respondents are criminal bent of mind being involved in number of criminal cases and they were not entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and also perused the documents attached with this petition. It is not denied that the names of respondents Nos.2 and 3 were introduced by the complainant/petitioner on 11-4-2005 A with the allegation of abetment while the alleged occurrence had taken place on 22-3-2005. The witnesses, namely, Mushtaq and Sarwar, who got recorded their statements after 15-days of the alleged occurrence and introduced the story that they had participated in Chehlam ceremony of respondents and heard them while discussing with each other about the commission of this offence as the petitioner was a hurdle in their success in the coming elections and services of Younas Butt team were planned to be hired for the purpose. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, has discussed all the aspects of the case including that both the witnesses were closely related to the complainant and if there was any danger to the life of the petitioner why the said witnesses kept mum for such a long period as the instant occurrence had taken place 21 days after the Chehlum and then their statements were recorded even after 15 days of the registration of the case. In such circumstances, the learned Additional B Sessions Judge, has rightly found the case of respondents Nos.2 and 3 as doubtful. I am also much impressed by the reasons advanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for grant of pre-arrest bail as reasonable doubt has created in the prosecution story to the extent of involvement of respondents Nos.2 and

3. Moreover, it is not believable that hatching of such conspiracy could be discussed in Chehlum openly even in the presence of close relatives of the petitioner. The mere involvement of the respondents in other criminal cases is not a ground for cancellation of bail before arrest as the prosecution story for their involvement in the present case has become doubtful. Moreover, nothing is to be recovered from the respondents, who have been alleged accused of abetment at belated stage. The motive is always considered to be double edged weapon and if the accused had motive for commission of the occurrence due to political rivalry, the same can also be a reason for their false implication in the case. Even otherwise, the liberty of the citizens cannot be curtailed merely on bald allegations. Moreover, the criteria for cancellation of bail is entirely different than that of grant of bail and it is not case of the petitioner that the respondents have misused the concession of bail. For the foregoing reasons, this application being devoid of any merits is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-1350/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application dismissed.