1998 P Cr (PLP)

Malik Muhammad Rafique Rajwana for Petitioners. Rizwan Ahmed Wasti for the State. On 15-6-1994 at 5-30 p.m. one procession of different persons including M.N.As. and M.P.As. and headed by Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly of Pakistan went to Razi Farm within the area of Police Station Darkhast Jamal District D.G. Khan. Riaz-ud-Din, Magistrate 1st Class, D.G. Khan/complainant in the company of the police party was present who stopped the procession. Mr. Inam Ullah Niazi, M.P.A. Hisam-ud-Din Khosa and others stepped ahead when Mr. Inam Ullah Niazi is alleged to have caught hold of the complainant from his Greban and issued threats to him. On the Lalkara of Mr. Inam Ullah Niazi M.P.A. One Toyota Corolla car without number plate was driven by the Driver towards the complainant who saved himself. The complainant is said to have been man handled. According to the complainant, a murderous assault was made by driving the car towards him. Formal F.I.R. No.62, dated 16-6-1994 was registered at Police Station Darkhast Jamal District D.G. Khan under section 324/353/506/186/148/149, P.P.C. During the investigation, Muhammad Mirza Khan Talpur petitioner/accused and some other persons were mentioned as the accused. They, apprehending their arrest, filed an application for their admission to pre-arrest bail. Five co-accused named as Haji Nazar Muhammad Khan, Haji Allah Bakhsh Khan, Haji Rasul Bakhsh, Bashir Ahmad and Shahzad Khan were admitted to pre-arrest bail on 13-9-1994. However, Muhammad Mirza Khan Talpur petitioner did not appear and his bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution. He filed an application afresh for his admission to pre-arrest bail on the same day (13-9-1994) which was dismissed on the ground that he had misused the concession of bail. He has entered the portal of this Court for his admission to pre-arrest bail.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the State and have gone through' the record before me. I am in full agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner who canvassed before me that the petition for pre-arrest bail having been filed on the same date of 13-9-1994 the initial petition moved by this petitioner was dismissed in default, the same should have been accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge through the attraction of the rule of consistency. There was no reason to deny the concession of pre-arrest bail to this petitioner on the same reasoning his co-accused were allowed the pre-arrest bail. It shall not be out of place to express that the State has not moved any application for the cancellation of the bail allowed to the co-accused of this petitioner and obviously the legal benefit of this aspect of the matter can be deprived by this petitioner.

3. On merits, I have to express that section 186/353, P.P,C. are bailable. A perusal of the F.I.R. has made me to express the view that Part I of section 506, P.P.C. may be attracted which is also bailable. The attraction of section 324, P.P.C. shall have to be considered during the trial as nobody was injured. Section 148/149, P.P.C. being inter-linked with the other sections, this petitioner is entitled to the legal benefit on my aforesaid view and reasoning. This petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Since the co-accused of this petitioner have been admitted to pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he is entitled to sail with them in the same boat.

4. I, therefore, accept this application and admit this petitioner to pre arrest bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Rs. ten thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, D.G. Khan. The bail bond etc. shall be submitted within a period of six days failing which this order shall become infructuous.

5. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges. N.H.Q./M-474/L Pre-arrest bail granted.