2014 PLP 1159 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.

Through this petition, Munir Masih, Jameel Masih, Saleem Masih and Azeem Masih petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 192, dated 16-7-2013, registered at Police Station Saddar Samundri, District Faisalabad, in respect of offences under sections 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 337-L(2), and 148/149 P.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been roped in this case with mala fide of the complainant in the backdrop of a dispute of plot, only to humiliate and pressurize them; that there is a delay of eight days in lodging of the F.I.R. without any explanation; that as per contents of the F.I.R. the injuries attributed to the petitioners maximum fall within the purview of sections 337-A(i) and section 337-L(2), P.P.C.; that out of twelve, five accused including main accused Shakeel Masih against whom, there is allegation of causing an injury with a Sota on the left arm of the injured Cornelious falling under section 337-F(v), P.P.C., have already been declared innocent; that in view of declaration of innocence of the co-accused of the petitioners, question of vicarious liability of the petitioners in the circumstances of the case, is a matter of further inquiry into their guilt.

3. Conversely, learned Law Officer opposing this bail petition contends that all the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of causing injuries to two injured namely Ishaq Peter and Brain Peter, who were medically examined on the same day through police and if there is delay of some days in lodging of the formal F.I.R., that cannot be attributed to the complainant; that deeper appreciation of merits of this case at this stage is not desirable; that version of the complainant is supported by medical evidence; that petitioners have actively participated in the occurrence as such, they are vicariously liable for every act of their co-accused; that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief and prior condition of pre-arrest bail is to prove mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police that is even not alleged in this case and that at the time of occurrence, petitioners were armed with their respective weapons, those are yet to be recovered from them.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. Be that as it may, there is delay of eight days in lodging of the F.I.R. despite of the fact that both the injured Ishaq Peter and Brain Peter were medically examined on the same day. As per averments of the F.I.R. allegation against the petitioners is that petitioner Munir Masih inflicted an injury with a Sota on the right side of the head of the injured Ishaq Peter, petitioner Jamil Masih inflicted an injury with a Sota at the head of the injured Brian Peter, petitioner Saleem Masih inflicted an injury with a Sota on the right leg of the injured Ishaq Peter whereas petitioner Azeem Masih inflicted an injury on the right shoulder of injured Brain Peter. The injuries attributed to the petitioners have been declared by the doctor simple in nature falling under sections 337-A(i) and 337-L(2), P.P.C. Admittedly, five co-accused of the petitioners including Shakeel Masih against whom, there is allegation of causing an injury with a Sota on the left arm of the injured cornelious falling under section 337-F(v), P.P.C., have already been declared innocent. Question regarding vicarious liability of the petitioners, can validly be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of some evidence. It is prima facie a matter of further inquiry qua the guilt of petitioners. The intended recovery of unspecified Sotas is inconsequential in the peculiar circumstances of this case, therefore, sending the petitioners behind the bars only for a technical reason to enable them to apply for bail after arrest is not justified. Reference in this regard is placed on the case of Muhammad Aslam v. The State 2000 YLR 1341. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioners by this Court vide order dated 27-9-2013, is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Area Magistrate within a period of fifteen days from today.

6. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition. HBT/M-16/L Bail confirmed.