2000 PLP 1341 (YLR)

Jamil Chohan for the State. Malik Muntazir Mehdi for the Complainant. Muhammad Aslam petitioner is an accused person in case F.I.R. No.463 registered at Police Station Saddar, Vehari on 1‑8‑1998 for offences under sections .337‑A (i), (ii), (iii)/337‑F(iii), (v)/34, P.P.C. The allegation against he petitioner and his two co‑accused is that at about 8‑00 a.m. on 1‑8‑1998 they had caused injuries to Muhammad Akram complainant in a field. An application seeking pre‑arrest bail submitted by the present petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari vide order, dated 9‑9‑1998. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the petitioner and the complainant of this case are real brothers and an element of a sudden fight are apparent even on the face of the F.I.R. itself according to which the complainant had himself approached the place of occurrence at the relevant time when the accused party was already present there. An altercation and exchange of abuses is mentioned in the F.I.R. itself before the inception of an assault allegedly launched by the accused party. So far three investigations have been conducted in this case. On 21‑8‑1998 a D.S.P./S.D.P.O. had found the petitioner fully implicated in this case and he had opined that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. against him were correct. On 10‑9-1998 a D.S.P., C.I.A. had found the petitioner to be innocent in this case. According to him the petitioner had been falsely implicated in this case by his motivated brother/complainant. Still later on 13‑2‑1999 another D.S.P./A.D.I.‑G. had found that the petitioner was only present at the place of occurrence and had in fact not caused any injury as he was not even armed during the occurrence. According to him the petitioner had only shared a common intention with his co‑accused in respect of causing of injuries and the allegation that he had himself also caused injuries were incorrect. It is also significant to note that one of the co‑accused of the petitioner has already been admitted to post‑arrest bail by this Court on 30‑11‑1998 through Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2153‑B of 1998.

3. Finding by one Investigating Officer that the petitioner was completely innocent and had been falsely involved in this case and a finding of another Investigating Officer that the petitioner had not caused the injuries allegedly caused by him to the complainant do impinge upon bona fide of the complainant's allegations. Thus, in the admitted background of bitterness between the petitioner and his brother/complainant mala fide implication of the petitioner by spreading the net wide is not an argument 1 which can be termed as far‑fetched. The petitioner appears to have a reasonably good I case for post‑arrest bail on .the basis of I suddenness of the occurrence, lack of premeditation on the part of the accused party, divergent findings of different Investigating Officers of this case and admission of a co‑accused to post‑arrest bail. Thus, it shall have a colour of ludicrousness if. he is sent behind the bars for a few days by dismissing to his application for pre‑arrest bail so as to enable him to come out of jail after a few days on post‑arrest bail. I for one would not like to be a party to such a mockery of the system.

4. For that has been observed above the petitioner has indeed made out a case of admission to pre‑arrest bail. Therefore, ad‑interim pre‑arrest bail allowed to him by this Court on 26‑2‑1999 is hereby confirmed.

5. Before parting with this order it is hereby clarified that any observation made in the present order shall not in any manner prejudice the learned trial Court at the time of the trial. N.H.Q./M‑1143/1, Pre‑arrest bail allowed