' The petitioner who is complainant of F.I.R. No.71 of 2003, dated 3-6-2003, registered under sections 452/337-L(2), 337-F(i), 148/149, P.P.C. With Police Station Tanda, District Gujrat, seeks cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to eight respondents herein who were named in the said F.I.R. As accused persons.
2; The story as narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R. Was that she was a house wife and was living at the village of her parents for the last two years with her three daughters and a son in a separate house after a dispute with her husband; that her daughter Shamaila and her husband Sajjad Ahmad were also staying with the complainant as guests; that Allah Ditta resident of the village and Muhammad Inayat from whom the petitioner had purchased bricks, etc. And who had to receive Rs.3000 from the petitioner were also present at her house on 1-6-2003; that meanwhile Manzoor Ahmad armed with a Sota; Zahoor Ahmad empty handed, Faqir Hussain armed with rifle, Muhammad Walayat armed with hatchet, Muhammad Inayat and Muhammad Awais armed with Dandas and Muhammad Tufail and Ijaz armed with hatchets entered the complainant's house through the roof of the house; that immediately on their arrival Manzoor Ahmad, -Muhammad Inayat, Muhammad Walayat and Faqir Hussain started beating up Allah Ditta with their respective weapons and Muhammad Awais, Tufail and Ijaz started giving beating to complainant, her daughter Shamaila and son-in-law Sajjad Ahmad; that Zahoor Ahmad who was empty handed also held Shamaila from her hair and started giving her slaps on her face; that on raising hue . And cry by the inmates of the house Muhammad Inayat who was present in the house tried to rescue the victims from. The accused; that on arrival of the people from neighbourhood all the accused escaped from the spot. The motive according to the F.I.R. Was that the accused persons wanted to dispossess the complainant from her house.
3. The respondents were allowed ad interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat which was confirmed vide the impugned order dated 10-7-2003. Hence this petition for cancellation of bail.
4. Mr. Farooq Haider, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his plea for cancellation of bail has argued that the impugned bail granting order is against law and facts on record; that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents did not keep in mind the parameters and considerations for grant of pre-arrest bail; that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not appreciate that four persons were injured from.
The complainant's side; that no mala fide or ulterior motives were alleged by the accused party and as such the essential ingredients for grant of pre-arrest bail were missing. He further argued that section 452, P.P.C. Was declared by the police in connivance with the accused party and that the facts and circumstances of the case warranted addition of section 458, P.P.C. He finally argued that ipse dixit of the police qua the deletion of section 452, P.P.C. Was not binding on the Court and that the respondents did not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. He has placed reliance on the case titled Muhammad Anwar Samma, M.P.A. And another v. The State, reported in 1976 PCr.LJ 1051. In this case while seized of a pre-arrest bail application, this Court had held that although the case had not been registered. Under section 367, P.P.C. Nor the said offence had been added yet the allegation prima facie disclosed the commission of offence under section 367, P.P.C. Which fell under the prohibitory clause of subsection (1) to section 497, Cr.P.C. The bail was refused in the said case. He also referred the case titled Ajmal Khan v. Liaqat Hayat and another, reported in PLD 1998 SC 97 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan spelled out the conditions for grant of anticipatory bail. He also relied on the case titled Qudrat Bibi v. Muhammad Iqbal, reported in 2003 SCM R 68 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court in the peculiar facts of the said case observed that the Court at bail stage should not have stamped the prosecution witnesses who had recorded their statements promptly to be false witnesses and accepted statement of the defence witnesses whose statements were recorded after considerable period of the occurrence by the Investigating Officer to conclude that the accused were innocent. Accordingly pre-arrest bail allowed to an accused who was attributed a specific role of causing injuries with a hatchet on the neck of the deceased was cancelled.
5. Conversely Ch. Arshad Mehmood, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this petition for cancellation on the grounds that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that even the medical examination of the allegedly injured persons was delayed without any explanation and that even then the so called injuries consisted of minor confusions, abrasions and complaints of pain; that three of the accused persons named 'in the F.I.R. Namely Zahoor Hussain, Manzoor Hussain and Muhammad Awais have been declared innocent by the police; that section 452, P.P.C. Which was the only non-bailable offence in the 'FIR. Was rightly, deleted by the Investigating Officer; that the bail granting order does not show any illegality or absurdity. He further argued that the challan has already been submitted in the Court; the accused have been summoned and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence on 11-11-2003, as such the bail granting orders does not warrant any interference at this stage.
6. Syed Sajid Raza, Advocate, learned counsel for the State has supported the petition for cancellation of bail and has argued that specific roles were attributed to the respondents; that they were duly nominated in the F.I.R. And that there was no justification in deleting section 452, P. P.
C .
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the impugned order dated 10-7-2003 with their assistance.
8. The perusal of the police file reveals that the Investigating Officer deleted section 452, P.P.C. After holding a detailed investigation and after recording the statements of a number of persons who appeared in defence of the accused persons. It must be remembered that this court is always reluctant and slow to interfere in a bail granting order unless the same is found to be perverse, fanciful, absurd or patently illegal. No such lacuna, I am afraid appears from the said order. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not advance his case for cancellation of bail. In 1976 PCr.LJ 1051 supra, the question of cancellation of bail was not involved.
As far as PLD 1998 SC 97 is concerned, conditions for grant of anticipatory bail were spelled out by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan with which there is no cavil at all. 2003 SCM R 68 is also not applicable as it was a case where the accused who was granted pre-arrest bail had caused serious injury on the neck of the injured. I would not like to make a detailed comment on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either of the parties, suffice to say that in the given facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to inference in the bail granting order moreso when the accused have been summoned to face their trial, which is likely to commence shortly. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant were recorded in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and do not advance the case of the petitioner for cancellation of bail. I see no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.