1995 P Cr (PLP)

Rana Bashir Ahmed Kasuri for Petitioners, Tanveer Qureshi for the State. Muhammad Usman, Muhammad Mushtaq and Muhammad Akram sons of Chahat Khan, petitioners being accused in case F.I.R. No.19, dated 24-2-1995 under section 337-A of Qisas and Diyat Ordinance read with section 148/149; P.P.C: registered with Police Station Sarai Mughal District Kasur seek their pre-arrest bail through this petition.

2. According to F.I.R. Muhammad Usman (petitioner No.1) armed with hatchet, Muhammad Mushtaq (petitioner No.2) armed with hatchet and Muhammad Akram (petitioner No.3) armed with Sota alongwith other co accused injured the complainant and his father. In support of the petition it was argued that there is unexplained delay of 30 hours in lodging the F.I.R.; as there is counter-version inasmuch as the Assistant Commissioner, Pattoki ha: ordered for registration of criminal case against the complainant party; the witnesses cited in the F.I.R. are closely related to the complainant party; the medico-legal report does not corroborate complainant's version and that the injuries attributed to the petitioners are simple in nature. It was argued that the co-accused of the petitioners who were ascribed the role similar to the petitioners have been released on bail and as such of the principle of consistency, the petitioners are also entitled to the same concession.

3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition and argued that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R: with a specific role and they were armed with weapons of offence which have been recovered.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the police file with care. Muhammad Usman petitioner gave a hatchet blow which hit on the head of the father of the complainant. Similarly Mushtaq gave a hatchet blow which hit on the head of the complainant. Muhammad Akram petitioner also gave a Sota blow which hit on the right shoulder of the father of the complainant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was fully justified in rejecting the pre-arrest bail application of the petitioners as injuries attributed to them were on vital pacts of the body of the injured Except Muhammad Akram two petitioners were armed with deadly weapons. Further the petitioners after rejection of their bail application from the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge managed to escape to approach this Court. The petitioners should have surrendered themselves before the Court and then seek the- concession. The distinction between the bail after-arrest and before arrest has been clearly laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Sarwar Sultan v. The State and another PLD 1994 SC 133.

5. Guided by the rule laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, I have no option except to dismiss the pre-arrest bail application of the petitioners. N.H.Q./M-2061/1 Bail refused,