2006 PLP 1523 (MLD)

SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.

Petitioner has filed this application for pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No.428/05, dated 16-7-2005 under sections 337-A-I, 337-A-II, 337-L-II, 148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station City Daska, District Sialkot.

2. According to the F.I.R. complainant and his son were attacked by the petitioner and co-accused, some of them were armed with fire-arms and some with Dandas. Allegedly petitioner was also armed with Mauzar. The complainant and his son were given Danda blows and also caused injuries with Butt of .222 rifle, however, no injury is attributed to the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that no overt act i.e. injury is attributed to the petitioner: According to him, the complainant party was aggressor, therefore, a cross-version has been registered. He submits that even during the course of investigation, the petitioner has been declared empty-handed and not armed with a Mauzar as alleged in the F.I.R. According to him, co-accused Shahid who stands assigned a role in the F.I.R. has been granted bail, therefore, petitioner should also be granted pre-arrest bail. The learned counsel adds that petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation any more.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant opposed the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was refused bail by the learned ASJ on the ground that he had misused the concession of interim pre-arrest bail as petitioner failed to appear before the Court. He also failed to furnish surety bonds as directed by the Court. For the same reasons, his bail was refused by the learned ASJ. In this regard, the learned counsel for the complainant refers to an order, dated 30-11-2005 passed by my learned brother Khawaja Muhammad Shari'', J. in Cr

1. Misc. No. 8723-B of 2005 (Ghazanfar Ali and others v. State). The learned counsel for the State also opposes the bail application. She submits that this is an application for pre-arrest bail and not after-arrest bail which is an extraordinary concession from the Court to an accused person. She submits that evidence collected by the Investigating Officer clearly proves the presence of the petitioner at the spot when the occurrence took place. She submits that bail before arrest was dismissed twice by the learned ASJ. She also submits that it was incorrect on part of learned counsel for the petitioner that MLR was issued after 5 days of the occurrence, it was issued on the same day as it is obvious from the record. She also submits that investigation to the extent of petitioner has not been completed as he just joined the investigation after obtaining the interim pre-arrest bail from this Court. Ile had earlier not joined the investigation and to complete the investigation his arrest is required.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The record shows that petitioner's bail application was dismissed by the learned ASJ, Daska vide his order, dated 13-8-2005 on the ground that he failed to appear in the Court as well as to furnish surety bonds as directed by the learned Court. Another point to be noted is that petitioner's bail application was dismissed by the learned ASJ on 13-8-2005 and the instant bail application for pre-arrest bail was filed on 27-10-2005 i.e. he submitted the present bail application after more than two months.

6. Petitioner is named in the F.I.R. his presence has been believed by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. So far challan to his extent has not been submitted in the Court. Apparently, there is no sign of mala fide on behalf of the police or complainant.

7. In view of the above, I do not find the petitioner entitled for granting of extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. Therefore, this bail application is dismissed. H.B.T./S-100/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.