1985 P Cr (PLP)

Ch. Muhammad Wasi Zafar for Petitioners. Petitioners present in person. R.A. Awan for the Complainant. Through this petition, pre‑arrest bail is being sought on behalf of the petitioners, against whom, a case under sections 148, 307 read with section 149, P.P.C. has been registered by the Police Station, Chung, vide F.I.R. No. 89/123, dated 8‑5‑1984, lodged by Rehmat Ali. The petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who, declined to admit the petitioners to pre‑arrest bail. A second application was also moved to seek the same relief, but the same was also dismissed because the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that he had already dismissed, the bail application and the dismissal of the earlier application had not been disclosed.

2. Both the complainant and the accused side are at daggers drawn with each other, number of cases are pending against each other. A which is evident by the list of such cases allowed to be placed on the record vide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 317‑M/84.

3. Munawar, Imtiaz and Nasrullah, petitioners, were armed with fire‑arm weapons and all the three had fired at Khadim Hussain, who has received three fire‑arm wounds on the shoulder, thigh and ankle. The receipt of these injuries is borne out by the medical report. Sarfraz Moazzam and Sheikh Muhammad, petitioners, were empty handed, and only a Lalkara has been attributed to Sheikh Muhammad, accused/ petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the complainant at length. The desperate character of both the parties can be imagined by the fact that on 20th of May, 1984, another F. I. R. was lodged with the allegation that the petitioners; Imtiaz, Sarfraz and Munawar alongwith Nasrullah and one Azam and Ayub, had opened an attack on one Amanat Ali from the complainant side, who was taking his guest at the bus‑stop. The circumstances of the case, lead to conclude that both the parties are in the habit of taking law into their own hands. The conditions for the grant of pre‑arrest bail as laid down in Hidayat Ullah Khan v. The Crown P L D 1949 Lah. 21, and in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Zia‑ul‑Hassan v. The State P L D 1984 S C 192 and Muhammad Safdar and others v. The State 1983 S C M R 645, prevent the admission of the petitioners to pre‑arrest bail. Thus the case, not being fit for the grant of pre‑arrest bail, this application is dismissed. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.