1995 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 498‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/148/149‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, grant of ‑‑‑Co‑accused had already been granted post‑arrest bail‑‑‑Investigation in the case was complete‑‑‑Complainant did not appear to have witnessed the occurrence and the matter was open to further inquiry‑‑‑Interim pre‑arrest bail allowed to accused was confirmed in circumstances. Malik Iqbal Mahmood Awan for Petitioner. Abdul Qayyum Anjum for the State. Pre‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.331/94, dated 31‑5‑1994 registered at Police Station A‑Division, Sheikhupura under section 148/324/149, P.P.C. on the basis of statement made by Bashir Ahmad son of Ali Muhammad to Ghulam Rasool, A.S.I., has been prayed.

2. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the present petitioner while armed with Chhuri, Yousaf and Liaqat co‑accused armed with Dandas, Babi armed with Dang and Iqbal armed with Chhuri formed an unlawful assembly, committed rioting and caused injuries to Muhammad Khalil P.W. One of the injuries was attributed to the present petitioner which, according to the complainant, hit Muhammad Khalil on his chest. The other injuries were attributed to Iqbal, also armed with Chhuri. The motive alleged was the altercation between Muhammad Khalil and the present petitioner which took place when a demand for the outstanding amount i.e. the purchase price of Tonga and the mare, was made by Muhammad Khalil. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was involved falsely in the case and that he had joined the investigation and was prepared to join the investigation in future as well in case it be further put to investigation. The learned counsel also contended that all the co‑accused of the petitioner were on bail and that the Investigating Officer had completed investigation in case and had also signed and compiled his report under section 173, Cr.P.C. on 2‑10‑1994 and that it was only after the orders of this Court, passed on 29‑11‑1994 that the Investigating Officer has changed his stance and that in such circumstances there were different findings on the file.

3. The bail has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and the learned counsel for the complainant. The complainant has also expressed his dissatisfaction over the investigation and allowing of bail earlier to the present petitioner. The injured P.Ws. of course was aggrieved persons and his way of expressing dissatisfaction was though, not approvable but still no action, in the circumstances is required against him.

4. The alleged occurrence took place on 31‑5‑1995. The co‑accused were arrested and enlarged on bail during this time and the investigation, for all practical purposes is complete. The F.I.R. was lodged by Bashir Ahmad, the father of the injured P.Ws. whereas the injured was taken to hospital for medical examination by Bashir Ahmad son of Ali Muhammad the neighbourer of injured P.Ws. Had the father of the petitioner, Bashir son of Ali Muhammad, been a witness of occurrence, there was no apparent reason for him not to take his injured son to the hospital which in the present case was a courtesy extended by Bashir Ahmad son of Abdul Ghani. Without making any comments on the merits of the case which shall be decided in accordance with law by the trial Court, there are reasonable grounds that the complainant had E not witnessed the occurrence and as such the matter was open to further inquiry. The petition, in the circumstances is accepted and the interim bailed allowed to the petitioner on 28‑9‑994 is confirmed. N.H.Q./M‑2023/L Pre‑arrest bail allowed.