1998 P Cr (PLP)

On starting investigation, the police wanted to arrest the applicants, therefore, they approached the trial Court with prayer for bail before arrest but the trial Court rejected their request. The learned counsel has urged that there is delay in lodging of the F.I R. inasmuch as the incident took place on 29‑12‑1997 while the report was lodged on 2‑1‑1998. The second argument of the learned counsel for the applicants was that the injuries received by Haji Arbab Ali were not serious therefore, the applicants deserve to be granted pre‑arrest bail. The learned A.A.‑G. however, stated that he has not received the police paper for which he needed time but his opinion after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants, was that since there was no direct involvement of applicant Katbar in causing of injuries to Haji Arbab Ali, he deserved pre‑arrest bail, while he opposed grant of any relief to applicant Ghulam Shabbir, in shape of pre‑arrest bail. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and also the copies of medical evidence produced by learned counsel for the applicants. I find that there is explanation for delay in lodging the F.I.R., but mere delay is no ground for grant of pre‑arrest bail. The second argument that the nature of injury was simple also has no relevance to grant of pre‑arrest bail, when it is caused by a fire‑arm, and there is allegation that more fires were, also shot at the victim, which obviously missed the target. The medical certificate issued by Medical Officer Taluka Hospital, Panoakil shows that Haji Arbab had received the following injuries:‑‑. "(1) Lacerated punctured wound measuring about 2‑1/2 c.m. in length x 1‑1/2 c.m. in breadth x deep to soft tissues, present on anterio‑medial aspect of left thigh at its lower l/3rd part. . (2) Lacerated punctured wound measuring about 2‑1/2 c.m. in length x 2 c.m. in breadth x deep to soft tissue present on posterior‑lateral aspect of left thigh at its lower 1/3rd part. Margins of both wounds are clean, swollen and reddish, slightly healed as the injured was admitted and treated at C.M.H., Panoakil Cantt. from 29‑12‑1997 to , 31‑12‑1997. Abovementioned both injuries i.e. Nos. l and 2 are communicated with each other i.e. through and through. " In addition to this, is a report of the Surgical Specialist C.M.H. Panoakil to whom the injured was referred for opinion in respect of nature of weapon. That report shows that injuries were caused by discharge, of a fire‑arm Besides, the Taluka Hospital doctor has noted that the injured was admitted and treated in C.M.H., Panoakil on 29‑12‑1997 to 31‑12‑1997, and X‑Ray was also taken at C.M.H., Panoakil. Thus, reverting to the averments of the F.I.R. and the medical reports, it is a case where the applicants are directly involved in causing fire‑arm injuries to Haji Arbab with whom they had dispute over matrimonial affairs. The applicant Katbar against whom there is no allegation of active participation in causing the injuries had come with the accused person in the car and ran away in the same car alongwith them after causing the injuries. Prima facie he appears to be liable vicariously. Their attempt of causing fire‑arm injuries prima facie appears to be an attempt to cause the murder. Therefore, provisions of section 324 read with section 34, P.O. C., are attracted and the punishment for the offence is 10 years, which comes under prohibitory clause. Apart from this, the grant of‑ pre‑arrest bail is covered by different considerations than an ordinary case for bail. One of them is mala fide involvement and apparent innocence of the accused, for which there should be strong reasons to hold that the case was fit for grant of pre‑arrest bail, as otherwise the applicants are likely to be arrested and disrespected being innocent. No such circumstance exists in the present case, as there is neither allegation of mala fide against the police nor the applicants have succeeded in showing their complete innocence in the case. By granting pre‑arrest bail to the applicants shall amount disallowing the police from interrogating the applicants, and stifling the investigation. Under the circumstances discussed above, I do not find that the present applicants are entitled to grant of pre‑arrest bail. The order of the Sessions Judge is also a considered one and is an speaking order and does not appear to suffer from any illegality or, deviation from settled principles, governing grant of pre -arrest bail. As a result this application for pre‑arrest bail is dismissed. H.B.T./K‑43/K Application dismissed.