1999 PLP 1183 (MLD)

Nasir Hussain Chishti for the State. Respondents are involved in a case under sections 337-H(ii), 440, 427, 148 and 149, P.P.C. registered at the report of Muhammad Shafi petitioner at Police Station, Pasrur District Sialkot vide F.I.R. No.4 of 1998 dated 4-1-1998.

2. Respondents applied for pre-arrest bails. They joined the investigation. Their pre-arrest bails were confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pasrur vide order dated 22-1-1998, on the ground that although firing was made by one of the accused, but no empty was recovered from the spot. As such offence under section 440, P.P.C. required further inquiry, whereas the remaining offences were bailable.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while confirming the bail of respondents, the learned trial Court did not take into account the well-known principles dealing with grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail. In this context, it is contended that there was no mala fide on the part of the police so as to entitle the respondents to earn bails; that weapons of offence carried by the respondents were never recovered by the police and as such respondents should not have been admitted to bails.

4. Lastly it is contended that two co-accused namely Rafaqat Ali and Qayyum have since absconded, and, therefore, respondents were not entitled to bails.

5. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that incomplete challan has already been sent to the Court concerned and that the matter in respect of involvement of Rafaqat Ali and Qayyum is yet under inquiry because the complainant i.e., the petitioner has submitted that if Haji Muhammad Mushtaq makes an oath regarding their innocence, he would accept the same.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that pre-arrest bail' has been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pasrur in accordance with law as no one was injured during the transaction and that respondents has faithfully joined the investigation. The mere fact that two co -accused namely Rafaqat Ali and Qayyum have since absconded could not disentitle the respondent to earn the bails, of their own rights. It is also submitted that admittedly nobody was injured during the occurrence although firing was made, but no empty was recovered.

7. Lastly it is contended that the F.I.R. is the outcome of mala fide because the respondents have been involved falsely in this case on account of civil litigation between the parties over the haveli in dispute, which was allegedly demolished during the occurrence.

8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar. It is admitted from both sides that there is civil litigation in respect of Haveli in question, which is pending and that none was injured during the occurrence nor any empty was q recovered from the place of occurrence. Without discussing the merits of the case, it is enough to say that the parties are also pitched against each other in civil litigation in respect of the Haveli in question, therefore, taking into consideration all the circumstances, the impugned order confirming the pre-arrest bails of respondents appears to be unexceptionable. This petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./M-730/L Petition dismissed