1983 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Bashir Khan for the Complainant Ch. Nazir Alam for the State. The petitioner has moved this application for pre‑arrest bail in a case registered against him and his co‑accused under section 307/324/452/148/ 149, P. P. C. on 13th August, 1980 at Police Station Dunyapur, District Multan.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he caused grievous fire‑arm injury on Muhammad Hanif P. W. He applied for bail before the learned Magistrate alongwith his co‑accused and his application was rejected on 20th November, 1980, on the ground that his case was distin guishable from other co‑accused, because he allegedly caused grievous injury with fire‑arm to the victim. He again applied for bail before the same learned Magistrate and the latter vide his order dated 8th January, 1981 granted him bail on the ground that the pistol shot hit the victim on his fore‑arm, which was held by him not to be on the vital part of the body and also that the petitioner remained in the lock‑up for six weeks. The complainant Muhammad Hanif filed an application seeking cancellation of the bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, and vide his order dated 19th February, 1981, he cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by the Magistrate. Tue petitioner thereafter did not surrender and moved application for pre‑arrest bail before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge interfered with the judicial discretion exercised by the magistrate in allowing bail to the petitioner. It was also submitted that the petitioner has not misused the concession of bail and thus he is entitled to the grant of pre‑arrest bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the case against the petitioner falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497 (1), Cr. P. C. as such, he is not entitled to the grant of pre‑arrest bail. It is submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly cancelled his bail because the learned Magistrate allowed bail to the petitioner on 8th Janu ary, 1981 when he had already refused bail to him on 20th November, 1980, without there being any fresh ground justifying grant of bail. The Police 29th August, 1980 which contained an allegation against the petitioner for tampering with the prosecution witness.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents on the file. The petitioner allegedly fire' pistol shot on the complainant resulting in grievous injury to the victim. The order allowing bail to the petitioner by the learned Magistrate on 8th January. 1981 was hardly justified when he had already refused him bail on 2nd November, 1980 and particularly when no fresh ground was raised on behalf of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is hit by prohibitory clause of section 497 (1), Cr. P. C. and he is not entitled to pre‑arrest bail The petitioner also absented himself on 19th February, 1981 from the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, when order for the cancellation of his bail was passed. He did not surrender even there after until moved this Court by means of this application. The learned trial Court is directed to expeditiously dispose of this case and if after recording some evidence a case for bail is made out and the petitioner applies for bail he shall not be influenced by this order in disposing of his application on merit. This application is accordingly dismissed. M. Y. H. Bail petition dismissed.