2002 P Cr (PLP)

Khalid Ashraf Khan for the Complainant. . Tanveer Ahmad Buzdai for the State Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Yasin, Afzal, Nadeem, Muhammad Tariq, Rashid Ahmad, Mubashar Ahmad, Waseem; Asghar, Abdul Majid, Ejaz Ahmad, Sejwara and Khursheed Ahmad have sought their pre‑arrest bail through this petition in case F.I.R. No,476 of 2001, registered at Police Station Saddar, Pakpattan on 10‑9‑2001, for offences under sections 148/149, 324 and 337‑H(2),. P. P. C.

2. According to the story of F.I.R. one Zaheer Ahmad, a relative‑of the complainant was ploughing in disputed Acre No.21, Rectangle No.80 at about 12‑00 (noon) on 8‑9‑2001, when the abovementioned accused alongwith one Saleem son of Muhammad Siddique (not petitioners) who were armed with fire‑arms reached the scene of occurrence. According to the allegations as levelled in the F.I.R. Saleem son of Saddique exhorted a Lalkara and fired with 'his .222 rifle at Zaheer Ahmad, who was hit under his right armpit and thereafter all the accused started firing aimlessly. The aforereferred Zaheer Ahmad also made good his escape from the field. The matter was not reported to the police for two days as according to the complainant he was busy in taking care of Zahoor Ahmad; who got injured during the occurrence.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners learned counsel for the complainant, learned counsel for the State and have also perused the record.

4. In support of the application the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the only injury has been attributed to Saleem son of Saddique, who is not a petitioner in this case and the rest of accused who allegedly were armed with fire‑arms did not cause any injury to any P. W. He has further stated that there was only one injury on the person of Zaheer Ahmad and there is no allegation that anyone of the accused/petitioners even aimed his weapon at Zaheer injured or any other P.Ws. He has produced a photocopy of medico‑legal certificate as well as a report of the medical examination by a Medical Board. According to the report of Medical Officer, the injury on the person of Zaheer Ahmad was simple and not dangerous for life. According to the findings of the Board, the said injury seemed to be manipulated one.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners and has submitted that the petitioner had .been consistently misusing their concession of bail He has stated that firstly the petitioners had been .getting adjournments from the Court below on one pretext or the other and when the bail was not granted to them they did not surrender. He has also stated that a large number or empties. relating to different weapons were recovered from the place of occurrence which clearly shows the involvement of the petitioners in this case. He has also asserted that the recovery has yet to be effected from the petitioners and the prosecution would have a setback in case the petitioners are not arrested.

6. The learned counsel for the State has, informed the Court that so far no offence relating to illegal possession of land has been added.

7. It has been noticed that admittedly the petitioners have joined the investigation and during that investigation nothing has been recovered from them. No coercive measures should be adopted for effecting the recovery neither the police can be allowed to adopt 3rd degree methods for creating evidence. Lalka.ra.in the F.1.R. has been attributed to Saleem son of Saddique, who is not a petitioner before this Court. A perusal of the aforereferred medical report makes at least one thing clear that there was no intention to cause death‑of any person. A very large number of persons have been involved in the case. As far as the petitioners' arrest is concerned the only allegation against them is that after the occurrence A they fired in air. In these circumstances their arrest would be unjustified. I am fortified in my view by placing reliance on the case of Miran Bukhsh v. State PLD 1989 SC 347 decided by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.

8. For what has been discussed above, I confirm the ad interim bail granted to the petitioners on 1‑11‑2001, subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. This petition is allowed. H.B.T./908/LAd interim bail confirmed.