1986 PLP 2218 (MLD)

‑‑‑S.498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.307, 323 & 148/149‑‑Contention that accused were not entitled to pre‑arrest bail as they did not appear before Sessions Judge, repelled‑‑No material on record existing to show that accused had absconded‑‑Accused had surrendered before Sessions Court and were granted bail before arrest but same was not confirmed‑ Bail petition decided on merits in circumstances. Criminal Petition No.12‑K of 1986 and Jamaluddin v. State 1985 S C M R 1949 rel. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Salima Nasiruddin and B.M. Bangash for Petitioner. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. This order would dispose of the two applications moved by the applicants for anticipatory bail. The facts of the case are that the complainant lodged the first information report wherein it is stated that while he was passing at Tahir Saifuddin Road opposite Court Chambers near main gate City Court when Soofi Rashid, Nausherwan and Jawed Haider Kazmi came towards him and Jawed Haider Kazmi abused him and Soofi Abdul Rashid and Nausherwan started beating him with fist and kicks. Meanwhile Imtiaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Basharat, Chaudhry Nazir Ahmad, Chaudhry Muhammad Ashraf', Mirza Ahmad Baig, Shamsher Ali, Syed Amanat Ali and many people gathered there. Haider Ali Kazmi directed Soofi Rashid and Nausherwan to shoot the complainant and Nausherwan took out revolver and shot at the complainant which hit him in his chest near the throat. Nausherwan fired two more shots in order to kill him but both missed. The present applicants Jawed Haider Kazmi and Soofi Abdur Rashid moved the Court of Sessions for grant of bail but their applications were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that no part has been ascribed to the present applicants and as regards the allegation that Jawed Haider instigated the accused to shoot there is mere allegation. Learned counsel has relied upon the case of Abdul Aziz v. Bashir Ahmad and another reported in P L D 1966 S C 658 wherein it has been held that in the absence of anything to indicate an earlier conspiracy the only 'lalkara' does not mean that there was a reasonable ground that such person was guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that the accused had not appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and, therefore, they are not entitled to bail. At present there is no material on record to show that they had absconded. In fact they had surrendered before the Court of Sessions and were granted interim bail before arrest but it was not confirmed. Learned counsel for the applicants have referred to Criminal Petition No.12‑K of 1986 wherein it is observed by .the Supreme Court that when the application for bail was filed the applicant/ petitioner had surrendered to custody. Learned counsel have also relied upon the case of Jamaluddin v. State reported in 1985 S C M R 1949 wherein the grounds for grant of bail have been mentioned and it is stated that where the accused was empty handed, there was no question of recovery of crime weapon from him. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon P L D 1985 S C

182. This authority is distinguishable. On the other hand cases cited by the counsel for the applicants fully apply to the present case. The medical report shows only one fire‑arm injury and there is mere allegation against the present applicants. They have not caused any injuries to the complainant and enmity is admitted by the parties. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General has also not opposed the confirmation of bail granted to the applicants. In such circumstances the bail granted to the applicants is confirmed. They are directed to appear before the Investigating officer whenever required. H.A.K. Pre‑arrest bail confirmed.