1992 PLP 1914 (MLD)

Muhammad Zawar Shah for Petitioners. M. Latif Khan Khosa for the Complainant. M. Latif Akhtar Masood for the State. The petitioners seek pre‑arrest bail in a case registered through F.I.R. No.38/92 dated 11‑2‑1992 under sections 337‑A(iv) and 452, P.P.C. with Police Station Saddar Sahiwal for causing injuries to Mubarik the complainant. According to the allegations in the F.I.R. a fight suddenly took place on a kite which according to the complainant was torn by Sohail his son‑but returned to the petitioners' party. According to the allegations Muhammad Akrani and Tariq petitioners entered the Ihata of the complainant and caught hold of Sohail his son who was dragged to the Bazar. On his raising alarm he also followed him. When he tried to save his son Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Aslam petitioners caught hold of him whereas Gulnawaz petitioner and Abdul Hamid father of the petitioners gave fist blows who were present there. Gulnawaz gave fist blows on the face of the complainant due to which his one tooth was broken. Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Aslam allegedly gave beating with their legs. At that time Muhammad Akram was also armed with Sota with which he gave injuries to the complainant at the buttock. The petitioners were granted pre‑arrest bail on 2‑3‑1992. According to the medico‑legal report one tooth of the complainant was extracted. The other injuries are admittedly simple according to the medico‑legal report.

2. The case of the petitioners is that there is enmity between the two parties on account of local bodies election in which Abdul Hamid father of petitioners Nos.1 to 3 was declared successful and he was ultimately elected as Vice‑Chairman of the Union Council and this case has been got registered mala fide in order to teach lesson to the family of the petitioners who are inter related and the case is false. The offence under section 337‑A(iv) is liable to arsh which shall be fifteen per cent of the diyat and the Court may in its discretion also pass sentence of imprisonment for 10 years as Tazir. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the case falls under section

334. Under this section the offence is liable to arsh and the Court has the discretion to pass sentence of imprisonment. The question whether in these circumstances section 451 or 452, P.P.C. shall be attracted is also open to serious consideration, for, if it is ultimately held to fall under section 451, P.P.C. the same is bailable.

3. For the foregoing reasons the case of the petitioners deserves bail before arrest. The pre‑arrest interim bail already granted to the petitioners vide order, dated 2‑3‑1992 is hereby confirmed. The bail application is disposed of. N.H.Q./M‑366/L Bail allowed.