2007 PLP 1190 (YLR)

M. BILAL KHAN, J.

Mst. Razia Begum wife of Dildar Hussain, the petitioner, by filing the instant petition seeks her pre-arrest bail in case F:I.R. No.199, dated 28-4-2005, registered at Police Station Saddar Sammundari, District Faisalabad for an offence under section 324/34, P.P.C. at the instance of Amjad Ali son of Muhammad Tufail.

2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner according to the complainant was that she while armed with a pistol .30 bore delivered a butt blow on the face of Muhammad Arshad, brother of the complainant,. resulting in fracture of his tooth, whereas her co-accused, namely, Dildar Hussain and Muhammad Hafeez, who were carrying .12 bore double barrel gun and .12 bore repeater, respectively, inflicted fire-arm injuries one by one on right leg of Muhammad Tufail, father of the complainant.

3. The petitioner's plea for pre-arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Samundari, who turned down the same vide order dated 7-5-2005 this petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the record brought by Zafar Iqbal, S.-I. Admittedly, the role assigned to the petitioner was that of causing a .30 bore pistol's butt blow on he face of Muhammad Arshad, resulting into fracture of his tooth, which allegation according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is not supported by the medical evidence. It is also worth-mentioning here that there was prima facie no occasion for the petitioner to indulge into such activity in the presence of male members, who were allegedly duly armed with lethal weapons. According to the Investigating Officer, present in Court, the petitioner has been found to be innocent during the course of investigation. Even otherwise, the petitioner being a female, her case falls within the ambit of the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Her plea for pre-arrest bail has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant, who in all fairness submitted that the petitioner being a lady is entitled to the concession of bail. The learned State counsel also did not oppose the plea of the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the complainant lamented that the investigation is not being carried out on merit, although one of the victims has suffered amputation of his leg in consequence of the injuries attributed to the co-accused of the petitioner. The Investigating Officer, who is present in the Court is directed to conduct the investigation strictly on merit without allowing any extraneous consideration to intervene.

5. For what has been observed above, this petition is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 23-5-2005 is hereby confirmed. H.B.T./R-60/L Bail confirmed.