2007 PLP 822 (YLR)

FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.

Petitioners Muhammad Waris, Muhammad Tariq, Ghulam Haider, Luqman and Muhammad Shafique, are seeking pre-arrest bail, in case F.I.R. No.266, dated 13-9-2006, offences under sections 324, 379, 427, 452, 148 and 149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Kakrali, District Gujrat for the allegations that the petitioners variously armed with deadly weapons, launched a murderous assault upon Muhammad Ilyas, nephew of the complainant and thereby caused injuries, hence, this case.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners are innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention. In fact, there is a dispute over some land, which was owned by the petitioners and the complainant party forcibly occupied the same and the alleged occurrence took place. Further contends that there is a civil litigation between the parties and the case has been lodged to blackmail the petitioners, which makes their case that of further inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The injuries suffered by the injured P.W. are self-inflicted, therefore, the petitioners deserve the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel has placed following case-law:- (i) 2006 PCr.LJ 1087 Lahore (Imdad Ali v. The State). (ii) 1982 SCMR 626 (Muhammad Ashraf v. The State). (iii) 2005 MLD 535 Lahore (Ali Sher v. The State). (iv) 2004 PCr.LJ 277 Lahore (Malik Muhammad Ashraf v. The State) and PLD 1989 Supreme Court 347 (Meeran Bux v. The State and another).

3. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail petition contending that the petitioners are specifically nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of causing injuries to nephew of the complainant. The offence under section 324, P.P.C. falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., hence, the petitioners do not deserve for any concession of extraordinary relief.

4. Having given the profound consideration to the respective arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it transpires that as per F.I.R.; specific role of firing at the spot and causing injuries to the injured P.W. is attributed to the petitioners. As per investigation of the police the petitioners were found to be guilty. They demolished the boundary wall of the complainant's house and also demolished one room and removed the superstructure. Recovery of weapons, used in the occurrence and the material removed from the place of occurrence, is yet to be made from the petitioners. Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 were attributed specific role in the F.I.R. and general allegation of demolishing the house has been levelled against petitioners Nos.3 to 5, whereas, they were said to be armed with deadly weapons.

5. In this view of the matter, case of petitioners Nos.3 to 5 calls for further inquiry into their guilt, thus, this bail petition is allowed to their extent and ad interim pre-arrest bail, already granted to them by this Court on 10-10-2006, is hereby confirmed, subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each, in the like mount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

6. Since, petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of causing fire-arm injury to one Muhammad Ilyas, nephew of the complainant, recoveries are yet to be effected from them. They were found to be guilty by the police. In these circumstances, no case for grant of extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail is made out, therefore, to their extent, this bail petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M-37/L Order accordingly.