2006 PLP 2322 (YLR)

M. BILAL KHAN, J.

Abdul Razzaq alias Zakir son of Dara and Muhammad Farooq son of Zulfiqar Ali, the petitioners, by filing the instant petition seek pre-arrest bail in case F.1.R. No.397 of 2005, dated 29-9-2005, registered at Police Station Chuchak, Tehsil and District Okara, for offences under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337-L(2)/34, P.P.C. and section 382, P.P.C. added subsequently.

2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as it unfolded in the F.I.R. registered at the instance of Taj Muhammad son of Muhammad Yaqoob complainant was that he and his son were going to Kot Radha Kishan from their house and when they had covered only a few paces from their house, the accused persons, namely, Mushtaq son of Khan Bahadur, armed with Dang, Ghulam Mustafa son of Mushtaq, Zulfiqar, Abdul Jabbar sons of Dara, armed with iron rods, Zakir son of Dara (petitioner No.1) Farooq son of Zulfiqar (petitioner), armed with Sotas, Rauf son of Zulfiqar Ali, and Ghulam Rasul son of Mushtaq, empty-handed, who had been waiting for them in a corner of the street, assaulted the complainant party and snatched a licensed revolver from the complainant. The role attributed to Abdul Razzaq alias Zakir (petitioner) was that he caused Sota blows to Salah-ud-Din son of the complainant on the backside of his left arm and on the chin of the complainant, whereas Muhammad Farooq allegedly caused Sota blows to Salah-ud-Din on the lower portion of the left arm and to the complainant at his left knee. The motive according to the complainant was that the assailants wanted to teach a lesson to the complainant party for having got as criminal case registered against the former. Resultantly the instant F.I.R. had been recorded.

3. The petitioners applied for their pre-arrest bail, which had been turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 31-10-2005. Hence the instant petition for pre-arrest bail.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record brought by Amanullah, D.S.P., Saddar Circle, Okara, who had personally conducted investigation. He has taken me through the police file. It has been observed that the petitioners have been attributed a direct role by the complainant in the F.I.R. The complainant as well as the witnesses resolutely stick to the statements, which they had respectively made under sections 154 and 161, Cr.P.C. The D.S.P. had held both the present petitioners to be guilty. The injuries attributed to them fall under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337-L(2), P.P.C. Although the offences charged with do not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., yet, this circumstances alone does not ipso facto entitle the petitioners to the A grant of extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any malice or ill-will on the part of the complainant or the police to have falsely implicated the petitioners. Likewise no special feature of the case has been noted by this Court, which could entitle the petitioners to the relief sought for. There is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and the order dated 7-11-2005, whereby the petitioners had been allowed and interim pre-arrest bail, is hereby recalled. Bail before arrest refused. H.B.T./A-98/L Bail refused.