2006 PLP 2952 (YLR)

SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.

The petitioners have filed this pre-arrest bail application F.I.R. No.260 of 2004 dated 8-8-2004 under sections 452/337-H-2, 337-A-2, 337-L-2, 148 and 149, P.P.C., at Police Station Shah Gharib, District Narowal.

2. According to the F.I.R., on 7-8-2005 sixteen people including three petitioners attacked the complainant while he was present with his brother, sister and parents at their residence. According to the F.I.R., different accused caused injuries to different members of the family with their respective weapons detail of which has been given in the F.I.R.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner No.3 is shown empty-handed and no role is attributed to petitioners Nos.1 and 2 in the F.I.R. According to him, no recovery has been effected from them and sections 452/337-H-2 has been deleted. Section 337-A-2 provides punishment of three years and section 337-L-2 provides imprisonment for five years, therefore, they do not fall within the prohibitory clause. He submits that case has been registered on basis of mala fide as F.I.R. No.253 of 2004 was registered wherein complainant was nominated as an accused person and Asif Ali is also nominated as an accused person. He also submits that though different accused are alleged to have caused injuries with fire-arm and sharp-edged weapon.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant, (sic) to the order of learned A.S.J. dated 7-10-2005 wherein he highlighted that this was a third bail application for pre-arrest bail before that, two bail applications were dismissed for non-prosecution and the learned A.S.J. also pointed out that petitioners misused the concession of pre-arrest bail. The learned A.S.J. also pointed out that recovery of weapons was to be effected and that five injuries were caused to Saeed Ahmad injured and five injuries were inflicted upon sister of Saeed Ahmad. The learned counsel for the State submits that all the three petitioners were found guilty and enough material has been collected against the petitioners.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is to be remembered that petitioners have filed an application for pre-arrest bail which is under consideration. In the F.I.R., petitioners were alleged to have committed offences under sections 452/337-H-2 besides sections 337-A-2 and 337-L-2. Undisputedly, sections 452/337-H-2 have been deleted but the petitioners have been challaned under others offences which fact is not disputed or challenged by filing an application of transfer of investigation etc. The petitioners are named in the F.I.R. with an act and tangible role. Though, the case was registered on 8-8-2004 and since then petitioners have been availing the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail one way or the other. The principle on which an extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail can be extended is not available in this case. The contents of paras.Nos.5 A and 6 of the order of learned A.S.J. Shakkar Garh dated 7-10-2005 hint on certain facts which do not support that petitioners should be granted this concession. However, even if the observations of the learned A.S.J. are disregarded, the material available on record disentitles the petitioners for extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. Therefore, this bail application is dismissed. H.B.T./M-469/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.