P L D 2000 Lahore 74 (PLP)

Through the instant petition petitioner seeks cancellation of pre‑arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. I to 4 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wazirabad on 26‑1‑1999.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents alongwith an unknown person with their common object attacked on Syed Zia Noor Shah petitioner near the old building of U.B.L. situated at Sodhra Town at 9‑30. a.m. on 30‑12‑1998 while armed with deadly weapons. Complainant Tanvir Ahmad according to the F.I.R. alongwith NaJeebullah Malik came out from his house and met Syed Zia Noor Shah who was also coming to Wazirabad City. They were proceeding towards Vagon Shed, the moment they reached near old building of U.B.L. all of a sudden five persons emerged from the front street Shaukat Hussain Awan respondent No.1 had iron rod with him, Muhammad younas alias Younsi respondent No.2 and Younas Konta son of Riaz Ahmad Kharal respondent No.3 were armed with Sotas, brother of Younas Konta known as Butt had also Sota with him alongwith another unknown person with their common object and intention were waiting for them. Petitioner who is teaching religious education to the people there was attacked upon. Shaukat Hussain Awan inflicted iron rod blow on his head which hit him on upper part of left ear. Blood started oozing from the injury. Respondent No.2 Younas alias Younasi gave Sota blow on his left thumb. Muhammad Younas Konta respondent No.3 gave Sota blow on shoulder of petitioner who after receiving the aforesaid injuries fell on the ground. He was thereafter mercilessly beaten by all accused one after the other with their respective weapons. Shaukat Hussain Awan respondent No. I kept on raising Lalkara that if anybody come near to save him they will kill him. He asked his companions that Zia Noor Shah be picked up and be taken to his Dera. He caught hold of his, beard, disgraced it and uttered filthy abuses. This attack was launched by all of them after consultation with each other by joining another person Muhammad alias Manna respondent No.4 as two of the accused are his brothers‑in‑law and are residents of Muridke and were sent by him for this occurrence. On raising noise by the complainant and his companions the accused fled away by extending threats of dire consequences.

3. The motive of the occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. is that during recent local councils' elections Zia Noor Shah was elected as councillor whereas Shaukat Hussain Awan was candidate to the office of chairman. Petitioner was against him and refused to vote for him. Shaukat Hussain Awan was extremely annoyed with Zia Noor Shah for opposing him. It is also stated in F.I.R. that respondent No. 1 is a habitual hardened criminal enjoyed in selling of intoxicants and is a gambler, involved in many cases of such nature which are still pending. Petitioner was taken to the hospital immediately and after getting the M.L.R. the report was made to the Police Station Sodhra and the case was registered against respondents Nos. I to 4 and another unknown person vide F.J.R. No . 303 of 1998 on 30‑12‑1998 at 3‑25 p.m.

4. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 on registration of the case submitted application for pre‑arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wazirabad who through impugned order confirmed the ad interim bail already granted to them on the ground that. Shaukat Hussain Awan respondent No. I on the sam6 day got recorded cross‑version in the case according to which Zia Noor Shah petitioner had caused serious injury to one Waryarn but he has not applied for grant of bail to any Court against the aforesaid counter‑allegation. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge the police was favouring injured of the F.I.R. and giving step‑motherly treatment to the accused. There is political rivalry between both the parties as Shaukat Hussain respondent No.1 was the candidate of chairmanship of Zila Council and petitioner was in opposition group. It was further observed that as far as medical report ' of Zia Noor Shah is concerned that is under scrutiny by the Medical Board constituted under the orders of District Magistrate, Gujranwala on the complaint of Assistant Commissioner, Wazirabad.

5. Petitioner/victim of the incident submitted the instant petition for cancellation of bail against respondents Nos. I to 4 in which on 5‑4‑1999 notice was issued to them. The case was fixed, on 14‑6‑1999 but they did not appear and the report of the process server showed that they were avoiding appearance in the Court. They were summoned through bailable warrants for 5‑7‑1999 and on this date respondents Nos. I to 3 appeared but on behalf of respondent No.4 it was stated that he was suffering from T.B., therefore, case was adjourned to enable him to appear on the next date. The case was accordingly adjourned for today. Respondents Nos. I to 4 are, present alongwith their counsel Mr. Tariq Mehmood Sipra, Advocate.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was mercilessly injured by the respondents particularly respondent No. 1 caused injury on' head of petitioner with iron rod and respondent No.2 dislocated thumb at the meta carpophalangeal joint according to the report of the Medical Board. There was no mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police as far as involvement of the accused is concerned. The ocular account is fully corroborated by medical evidence. It was not a fit case for grant of pre‑arrest bail.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that one Waryarn was injured on the side ' of the accused which fact has been suppressed in the F.I.R. He has referred to the medical certificate of Waryam issued by Dr. Shahid Masood. The suppression of injuries on the person of Waryam and ‑in action on the part of the police in not proceeding on the basis of counter‑version clearly shows that the respondents were involved in a mala fide manner. It is also argued that respondent No. I was a candidate for chairmanship of Zila Council and petitioner opposed him who is being supported by the local M.N.A. and for this reason he alongwith others has been falsely implicated. He lastly argued that the challan has been submitted in Court, therefore, it is not proper to cancel the bail at this stage.

8. Learned State Counsel has supported the petition for cancellation of bail.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have been found guilty during investigation and all of them are in Column No.3 of the challan. Contention of the respondents that complainant suppressed injury on the person of Waryam a companion of accused is not corroborated by any reliable evidence. It appears that an attempt was made by the accused to get a medical certificate from Capt. Dr. Muhammad Rafiq, Medical Superintendent, 'Wazirabad and Dr. Shahid Masud, Medical Officer, Wazirabad in collaboration with, each other by fabricating injuries on the person of Waryam. Petitioner submitted a complaint to the Assistant Commissioner Wazirabad for action against the concerned medical officer for issuance of a fake certificate. The Assistant Commissioner referred the matter to Mr. Rafiq Ahmad Malhi, Magistrate, Wazirabad, for inquiry into the Medico‑legal Certificate of aforesaid Waryam. He examined entire record, the doctors and other concerned medical officer and concluded that said medico‑legal certificate was issued by Dr. Shahid Masud and Capt. Dr. Muhammad Rafiq for vested interest as a result of collusion of the accused with Waryam Hussain. It was reconunended that a Medical Board, be constituted to ascertain the injuries of Waryarn Hussian. On receipt of the report of the Magistrate dated 7‑1‑1999 Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 8‑1‑1999 reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala that glaring irregularity has been brought to light in issuance of medical report by two persons Capt. Dr. Muhammad Rafiq, Medical Superintendent, Wazirabad and Dr. Shahid Masud, Medical Officer, Wazirabad who have not only violated the laid down rules and procedure regarding the issuance of medical legal certificate but also acted with obvious bias and prejudice. It was recommended that after perusal of the inquiry report a Medical Board be constituted to examine Waryam Hussain who has been ‑issued a fake and bogus medical certificate. He also recommended that departmental inquiry be held against aforesaid doctors. The Deputy Commissioner thereafter wrote a letter to the Health Secretary, Government of the Punjab on 30‑1‑1999 for departmental action against the aforesaid doctors for issuance of fake medico‑legal certificate of Waryam Hussain with the connivance of accused by placing them under suspension. The detailed inquiry held by the Magistrate, the order of the Assistant Commissioner and that of the Deputy Commissioner apprising the Health Secretary about the conduct of Medical Superintendent, Wazirabad and Dr. Shahid Masud clearly established that the accused attempted to create fake evidence of counter‑version in their defence., The medical certificate issued in favour of petitioner was not under scrutiny at all. It was the fake certificate of Waryam Hussain procured by accused party to set up a counter‑version was 'under scrutiny. The medical certificate of the petitioner was produced before police at the time of lodging of F.I.R. The observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the medical report of Zia Noor Shah is under scrutiny by the Medical Board is against the record. In fact the Medical Board was constituted for examination of Waryam Hussian who did not appear before the Board and the certificate issued in his favour by M.S. and Dr. Shahid Masud was found fake during inquiry. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has fallen in error in mixing up the medical reports of the petitioner and that of Waryam Hussain. No objection regarding the genuineness of the medical report of the petitioner was ever raised by the accused. The counter‑version set up by accused on the basis of aforesaid fake medical certificate is belied by detailed inquiry referred above. It is not a case of two versions at all. During the investigation all the accused were found guilty and challan has been submitted against them.

10. Contention of the learned counsel for respondents Nos. I to 4 regarding involvement of the respondents on account of political enmity between the petitioner and respondent No.1 does not lend support . to the plea that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. It is specifically stated in the F.I.R. that petitioner refused to support respondent No.1 in the election which caused annoyance to him furnishing motive of attack. Such enmity cuts both ways. This is in fact the motive of attack on the petitioner. The version of the petitioner is fully supported by medical evidence and the investigation conducted by the local police in which respondents Nos. I to 4 have been found guilty. The mere fact that the challan has been submitted is hardly a ground for not interfering with bail granting order. There Was no justification to grant bail to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in view of their heinous role played in the occurrence. Respondent No. I Shaukat Hussain Awan and respondent No.2 Muhammad Younas alias Younasi are specifically attributed to have caused injuries with their respective weapons on the vital parts of the body of the petitioner. They are not entitled to the concession of pre‑arrest bail. The order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 26‑1‑1999 is set aside and their bails are hereby cancelled.

11. The case of respondents Nos.3 and 4 is slightly different Respondent No. 3 has not caused injury to the petitioner on his vital part whereas respondent No.4 was empty‑handed and no specific role is attributed to him. The petition for cancellation of bail to the extent of respondents Nos.3 and 4 is dismissed. N.H.Q./Z‑88/L Order accordingly.