2004 P Cr (PLP)

Concession of pre‑arrest bail has been sought by the petitioners through the instant petition, in case F.I.R. No.11, dated 16‑1‑2004 registered with Police Station Civil Lines, District Bahawalpur under sections 324/337‑H(ii)/148/149, P.P.C.

2. Prior to filing of this petition, the petitioners alongwith one Muhammad Kamran Ahmad had moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur for grant of pre‑arrest bail but were refused except Muhammad Kamran Ahmad, who was granted pre‑arrest bail on 14‑2‑2004. Hence this bail before arrest petition filed on 24‑3‑2004, in this Court.

3. To summarize the detailed story narrated it: the F.I.R., it may be noted here with benefit that the petitioners were attributed firing upon the person of Muhammad Asghar, informant and on the body of Lala Azhar, allegedly on the dispute of taking of chance to park the bus at the bus stand and to ply it before the other and evacuation of the passengers from the bus.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in fact the informant and his party was the aggressor but had involved the petitioners falsely in the case. According to the learned counsel, Khalil‑ur‑Rahman and Muhammad Asghar, who were allegedly fired at were reported to have received blunt weapon injuries upon their persons according to the medico‑legal report. So, there was a contradictory medico‑legal report against the narrated story in the above mentioned F.I.R., therefore, the petitioners were entitled to the grant of concession of pre‑arrest bail.

5. Having heard the learned counsel at great length, I am inclined to decline the concession of pre‑arrest bail to the petitioners on the following grounds:‑‑ (i) For claiming concession of bail before arrest, the petitioners have to display that the police was out to arrest them with mala fide. The registration of the case on 16‑1‑2004 and the period up to the filing of this petition on 24‑3‑2004 negate the mala fides on the part of the police/prosecution because if the police had the motive to falsely involve the A petitioners, it would have arrested them in the beginning and had not spared them to remain free from January to March, 2004. (ii) The un‑interestedness of the police is more evident from the fact that the pre‑ arrest bail applied by the petitioners before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, which was declined on 14‑2‑2004, had not motivated or activated the police to arrest the petitioners till today. This fact also supports the conclusion that in fact the police is not chasing the petitioners. (iii) The alleged ground of contradiction in the medico‑legal report qua the story narrated in the F.I.R. is not tenable as the medico legal report of Khalil‑ur‑Rehman has shown that injury No. 12 could be inflicted by fire‑arm weapon. So, the ground of contradiction has disappeared after the finding and report of doctor. Even this fact needs a deeper examination and cannot be appreciated at this stage. (iv) The version of the petitioners is that the informant party was aggressor and there was a fight, in which Muhammad Rafique, one of their co‑accused was injured, proves that there was a fight at the time of alleged occurrence. Who is the aggressor has still to be decided by the police during its investigation and before that opinion of the police it cannot be held that the petitioners are completely innocent. (v) It is settled principle of law, which has been expounded and propounded by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that to get concession of pre‑arrest bail, mala fide on the part of the prosecution, especially the police has to be shown through some cogent reasons. Immediate apprehension of arrest is also another ground for grant of concession of pre‑arrest bail. The innocent and respectable person was going to be involved in a case so as to humiliate him and degrade him in the eyes of the society to gain some advantage and to take an indirect benefit is also necessary for the concession. In fact the concession of pre‑arrest bail is .a remedy of an exceptional and extraordinary nature which has to be granted in exceptional cases and discretion has to be used with care and caution in a given circumstance. If in all the cases, the concession of pre‑arrest bail is allowed to each and every accused of a case, the process of investigation would be strangulated and the police would not be able to complete its investigation in a smooth way. Having found no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances for grant of concession of pre‑arrest bail to the petitioners, the instant criminal miscellaneous is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./S‑65/L Bail application dismissed.