2006 PLP 1678 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.

This order shall also dispose of Bail Cancellation Application No.133 of 2006 as both relate to the same F.I.R. No.209 dated 6-12-2005 under section 337-A(i)(ii), P.P.C. of Police Station Takht Nasrathi, District Karak.

2. Naseeb-ur-Rehman complainant had lodged a report against seven accused, including two male and five ladies, for having attacked him, his wife Mst. Amal Bibi and one Mst. Azad Bano P.Ws. Accused Muhammad Asghar is still at large while accused Dilawar Khan and five ladies were released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karak on 4-1-2006 by two separate orders, by confirmation of their pre-arrest bail. The complainant has, through these applications sought the cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondents. 2A. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.

3. So far as the five ladies/ respondents are concerned, they are not attributed any specific role of causing injuries to the complainant and the P.Ws. The medical report relating to the role assigned to them does not confirm the contents of the F.I.R. Only one injury on the person of Mst. Amal Bibi, wife of the A complainant, was caused with sharp weapon, whereas all the other, either on the person of the complainant or P.Ws., were caused by blunt means. Hence the allegations in the F.I.R. have not been supported by the medical report and that is why the ladies deserve the concession of bail.

4. However, the case of respondent No.1 Dilawar Khan is on different footing. He was charged with a positive role which has been confirmed by the scientific evidence, i.e. Medico-legal Report. He appears to be guilty of attacking a lady and injuring her head with a sharp weapon. This unfortunate incident has occurred in a place where respect is extended to the womenfolk, despite the worst enmities between the parties.

5. The contention that the bail before arrest should not have been confirmed because there was a different criteria applicable to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail and the grant of regular bail after arrest was repelled on the argument that once a bail is allowed, its cancellation must satisfy the prescribed criteria which is lacking in this case.

6. The facts necessitating the confirmation of pre-arrest bail have been thoroughly discussed by the learned lower Court by observing that the throwing of a wide net and implicating the entire members of the family, including five females establishes the mala fide of the complainant and thus the confirmation of pre-arrest bail was justified. However, while confirming bail, the learned Court should have considered the role attributed C to each of the accused. Even if the throwing of wider net may be considered as mala fide but the naming of at least one person for having caused the injuries falling under section 337-F(i) and (ii), P.P.C., had to be kept in mind. The justification of confirming the pre-arrest bail to accused Dilawar Khan is not forthcoming from the available record.

7. Therefore, the Bail Cancellation Application No.132 of 2006 is partially allowed. The bail granted to Dilawar Khan, accused/respondent No.1, is recalled. He is present in Court, taken into custody and remanded to judicial lock-up. The request for the cancellation of bail of other respondents is declined. H.B.T./87/P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.