2007 P Cr (PLP)

M. BILAL KHAN, J.

Nazir Ahmed son of Shah Muhammad, 'the petitioner, who is complainant of case F.I.R. No.70, dated 19-3-2005, registered at Police Station Saddar Renala Khurd, District Okara for an offence under section 337-F(ii)/34, P.P.C. by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.4312 and 7830/CB of 2005, seek cancellation of pre-arrest and post-arrest bail allowed to Rashid Ahmed and Ghulam Rasool, respondents in both the respective petitions by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara vide separate orders, dated 20-4-2005 and 30-5-2005, respectively.

2. The case of the prosecution ,as it unfolded in the F.I.R. registered at the instance of Nazir Ahmed son of Shah Muhammad, Complainant/petitioner, was that he was resident of Chak No.4/1-AL Khurd, on 17-3-2005, at 7-00 a.m. his son Waseem Ahmed had gone to the fields to fetch fodder; he and Amanat Ali son of Shah Muhammad had also been following him for the said purpose, when Waseem Ahmed had reached Square No.88, Killa No.20, Riaz Ahmad, Ghulam Rasool, and their father Rashid Ahmed, armed with daggers, who were sitting in ambush had emerged, Rashid Ahmed had exhorted a Lalkara that Waseem Ahmed be caught hold of and taught a lesson for the quarrel, whereupon Riaz had delivered three successive dagger blows to Waseem Ahmed, which landed on his right and left side of the neck near jugular vein under the jaw, who fell down, thereafter Rashid Ahmad caught hold of Waseem Ahmad and Ghulam Rasool started inflicting dagger blows one after the other on left and right flank of Waseem Ahmad, on the hue and cry, he and Amanat Ali reached the venue of occurrence and witnessed the incident on catching sight of them, the accused fled from the scene. The motive as alleged by the complainant was that on 16-3-2005 at evening time, a quarrel had taken place on the demolition of watercourse and at that time Riaz accused had issued threats that he would fix them up, which grudge was being nourished by the accused in the manner as stated above. Resultantly, the instant F.I.R. had been registered.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record brought by Munir Ahmad S.-I.

4. It had straightaway been observed that the allegation against Rashid Ahmed (respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4312/CB of 2005), who had been allowed pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was that he had raised a Lalkara that Waseem Ahmed be caught hold of and be taught a lesson for quarrelling, whereupon Riaz co-accused caused three successive injuries to Waseem Ahmed, which landed on the right and left side of his neck near the jugular vein and beneath the jaw, which caused Waseem Ahmad to fall down. According to the complainant, after Waseem Ahmed had fallen down, Rashid Ahmed (respondent) took him in his clasp facilitating Ghulam Rasool (respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.7830/B of 2005) to cause two blows with dagger one after the other on the left side of abdomen and on the right flank. Therefore, the observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting pre-arrest bail to Rashid Ahmad (respondent) that in view of the allegation of Lalkara and catching hold of the victim, he is entitled to the bail, is absolutely perverse and arbitrary. He failed to examine the case in its totality and tried to trivialize the role of the respondent and proceeded to extend him the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. He completely lost sight of the fact that had Rashid Ahmed respondent not overwhelmed the victim, it would not have been possible for Ghulam Rasool (respondent) to have inflicted dagger blows on him. As such, the exercise of discretion in favour of Rashid Ahmed (respondent) can by no stretch of argument be termed as proper and legal.

5. Insofar as the case of Ghulam Rasool (respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.7830/CB of 2005) is concerned, the role played by him has been described hereinabove. After sustaining injuries caused by Riaz co-accused, when Waseem Ahmed had fallen down, he was overpowered by Rashid Ahmed (respondent), whereafter Ghulam Rasool (respondent) caused two injuries with a dagger one after the other on the left side of the abdomen and on the right flank. The injuries suffered by the victim on the abdomen had caused considerable damage and offence under section 337-D, P.P.C. had been added vide Zimni No.10, dated 10-5-2005 Ghulam Rasool (respondent)had been arrested on 20-4-2005 whereas he was allowed post-arrest bail vide order, dated 30-5-2005. Although paragraph No.5 of the order, dated 30-5-2005 which contains the reasoning for grant of post-arrest bail runs into almost two pages, but I am afraid there is no substance in the reasoning advanced for grant of post-arrest bail to Ghulam Rasool (respondent) in a serious case attracting section 337-D, P.P.C. which entails punishment of ten years. A perusal of the said paragraph reveals that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has entered into realm of deeper appreciation of the material available on the record and has thus violated the principles for the grant of bail in a case attracting prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

6. Resultantly, both these petitions are allowed and the pre-arrest and post-arrest bail allowed to Rashid Ahmad and Ghulam Rasool (respondents in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.4312 and 7830/CB of 2005) vide orders dated 20-4-2005 and 30-5-2005 respectively, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara are hereby recalled. The respondents shall be remitted to custody in terms of section 497(5), Cr.P.C. H.B.T./N-96/L Bail cancelled.