2006 PLP 2675 (YLR)

M. BILAL KHAN, J.

Precisely the facts giving rise to the instant pre-arrest bail application moved on behalf of Jabbar Ali, Sabir Ali sons of Khushi Muhammad, Asghar Ali Son of Jabbar Ali and Gulzar son of Noor Jamal (the petitioners) are that Jabbar Ali (petitioner No.1) got registered case F.I.R. No.406, dated 6-11-2005, at Police Station Gogaira, District Okara for offences under section 452/34, P.P.C. read with section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance No.XX of 1965 against four persons, namely, Asghar Ali, Akbar sons of Nawaz, Asif and Tariq sons of Ghulam Nabi alleging therein that on 5-11-2005, about 6-00 p.m. he was present at his shop; all of sudden all the four accused persons carrying firearms arrived there; Asghar and Akbar forcibly entered the shop, whereas Asif and Tariq remained standing outside; Akbar raised a Lalkara that they had come there to abduct Mst. Yasmin Bibi and if anybody had the courage to stop them then he may do so; he beseeched them and raised hue and cry; whereupon Gulzar son of Noor Jamal, Muhammad Ali son of Jabbar and other persons, who were residents of the village, were attracted to the spot and witnessed the scene; thereafter the accused fled from the spot; when they were fleeing, one of them, namely, Asghar was pushed by him and the former struck against the wall and thus suffered an injury. According to the complainant, he succeeded in snatching a carbine from Asghar, but he also fled from the spot. The motive behind the occurrence as narrated in the F.I.R. was that four months ago, Mst. Yasmin, paternal niece of the complainant, had been abducted by Asif son of? Ghulam Nabi, who had been restored due to intervention of the respectable of the village. Resultantly, the F.

1. R. had been recorded.

2. After registration of the F.I.R. investigation commenced, during the course whereof, Ghulam Nabi, father of Asif accused in the F.I.R., got recorded his cross-version under sections 337-A(i), (ii), 337-F(i), (v), 337-L(2), 367, 148 and 149, P.P.C. against the aforesaid four petitioners, claiming therein that in fact on 5-11-2005, about 7-30 a.m., his nephew, Asghar Ali went to the shop of the Farzand at which point of time the four petitioners while armed with weapons reached there and started dragging Asghar Ali towards their home, due to which the latter suffered injuries; the said incident had been witnessed by Ahmad Ali and Nazir. It has further been alleged in the cross-version that he along with the witnesses and other inhabitants of the locality went to the house of Jabbar Ali (petitioner No. l) and brought his nephew Asghar Ali back.

3. Consequent upon registration of the said cross-version, the petitioners apprehending their imminent arrest at the hands of the police approached the learned Court of Session at Okara for pre-arrest bail, but their plea did not find favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, who proceeded to decline them the relief sought for vide order, dated 25-1-2006. Hence, the instant petition. 4. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record brought by Muhammad Mukhtar, A.S.-I.

5. It has been observed that during the course of successive investigations conducted by D.S.P. (Investigation) Saddar and thereafter by D.S.P. Headquarters (Investigation), the petitioners have been found to be guilty, whereas the F.I.R. version had been recommended for cancellation and the said opinion of guilt has been verified by the District Police Officer, Okara. The medico-legal report of Asghar Ali, injured, reveals that he had suffered as many as fifteen injuries at the hands of the petitioners. The offence under A section 367, P.P.C., with which the petitioners have been charged for the time being attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any malice either on the part of the complainant or the police to falsely rope in the petitioners in the case, which is the pre-requisite for extending the concession of pre-arrest bail to the accused. No case for pre-arrest bail is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed and the inter anticipatory bail allowed to the petitioners by this Court vide order; dated 30-1-2006 is hereby recalled. H.B.T./J-21/L? Bail refused.