2005 PLP 666 (YLR)

Abdul Ghafoor for Petitioner No.

5. Tahir Abbas Rizvi for the State. Muhammad Arif Chaudhry for the Complainant. Muhammad Aslam, A.S.I. with police Record. At the very outset, learned for the petitioners has stated that he does not press this petition to the extent of petitioner No.5, as he has been declare, innocent. The petition to his extent is dismissed as having not been pressed.

2. Petitioners Nazakat Ali and Mudassar have sought for pre‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.377 dated 25‑8‑2004 under sections 337‑A(ii), L(ii), H(ii), 354, 452, 148 and 149, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Khudian, District Kasur.

3. Briefly the prosecution case, as per F.I.R. is that on 22‑8‑2004, Muhammad Zubair alias Bago and others, while variously armed, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by them have tress-passed into the house of the complainant. On the Lalkara of Muhammad Zubair alias Bago, Nazakat Ali had given blow with the blunt side of the Hatchet to the complainant hitting on his forehead. Zulfiqar Ali had inflicted blow with the blunt side of hatchet to Muzammal at his head. Muhammad Zubair alias Bago had given blow with butt of the gun to Mst. Razia Bibi, the maternal aunt of the complainant on her left arm. Zulfiqar Ali had given hatchet blow to Sughran Bibi on her back. Mudassar had given blow with butt of the gun to Muhammad Aslam hitting on his head. Nazakat Ali again inflicted blow with blunt side of the hatchet to the complainant on his shoulder. Abdul Ghafoor gave blow with the butt of gun to the complainant hitting on his hand. The unknown persons had made firing in the air. The accused thereafter had dragged Mst. Razia Bibi and Sughran Bibi and torn their clothes and so made them naked and brought them to the street.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. They have been ascribed specific roles in the commission of the alleged offence. It has been submitted on their behalf that they have cross version and it, thus is yet to be determined that who was aggressor and who aggressed upon and in support such of submission, the reliance has been placed upon the cases of Shah Ali and others v. The State 1976 PCr.LJ 1021 Lahore; Mir Hassan and another v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 1336 Karachi; Muhammad Ejaz Anwar v. The State 1993 MLD 1749 Lahore; Jalil Ahmad v. The State 1995 MLD 782 Lahore; Shoib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar ul Haq and 3 others 1996 SCMR 1845; Dr. Muhammad Shoail Suddle DIG Police, Karachi and Others v. The State 1997 SCMR 1234; Muhammad Maqsood v. Kabir Ahmad etc, 1997 PCr. LJ 1333 and Abdul Jabbar and 6 others v. The State 200! PCr.LJ 1956 Lahore. Allegedly the weapons of offence are still to he recovered from them. It is likely that in case, the extraordinary relief of pre‑arrest bail is extended to them, the object of recovery and investigation is likely to be frustrated. The alleged recovery, if is effected, a true picture of the matter will be before Court.

5. In view of this aspect of the matter, I have not been persuaded to extend them the relief of pre‑arrest bail. As regards the case‑law cited above, one of these cases was for post‑arrest bail and the others in respect of question of pre‑arrest bail.

6. However, due to above distinctive feature of the case, i.e. the question of recovery of weapons of offence from them, those are not aptly applicable to these petitioners' case. The petition, therefore, is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑739/L Application dismissed.