' Through this criminal miscellaneous the petitioner seeks cancellation of pre-arrest bail of respondent No.1 granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order, dated 27-2-2004 in case F.I.R. No. 23, dated 8-2-2004 registered under sections 302, 324, 149 & 34, P.P.C. At Police Station, Mandra on the allegation that Yasir son of the petitioner was murdered by accused named in the F.I.R. On the instigation of respondent No. 1.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.1 was specifically nominated in the F.I.R., that the learned trial Court has taken the offence of abetment in a very light manner and that co-accused Muhammad Zareed son of the respondent and Nasir nephew of the respondent are still absconding. He further contends that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the principle of grant of pre-arrest bail as laid down 1,y Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases of Malik Zafar Abbas v. AgAa Raza Abbas Qazilbash and another F. CD '002 SC 529, Mst.
Hanifan Bibi and another v. Zulfiqar and another PLD 2001 Lahore 123 and Zia-ul-Hassan v. State PLD 1984 SC 192.
3.. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent in opposition, contends .That the respondent was not present at the time of alleged occurrence; no role has been attributed to him.
The only role attributed to the respondent in the F.I.R. Is that at his instance the accused have committed the murder of Yasir Mahmood; the alleged evidence of conspiracy did not find mention in the F.I.R.; that the respondent is an old man and is being falsely implicated in the case. He placed reliance on Arshad v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 611 and Manzoor Ahmad and another v. State 1997 PCr.LJ
850. Learned counsel appearing for the State supported the petition and submitted that respondent No.1 was not entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail.
4. I have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Yasir Mahmood was murdered while Faisal Mahmood and Mst. Fareena Bibi received injuries on their persons at the hands of Muhammad Zareed, Nasir, Qadeer and Faisal armed with rifles.
Respondent No.1 is stated to have abetted the commission of offence. Fazal Karim and Akhtar Mahmood got recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Implicating respondent No.1 of hatching a conspiracy to do away with Yasir Mahmood and Faisal Mahmood.
6. Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief which is not granted in routine. The investigation is neither to be frustrated nor blocked by grant of pre-arrest bail. It is granted in cases of intended arrest for any mala fide purpose or ulterior motive at the hands of the police. There is no allegation whatsoever against the investigating agency to effect the arrest of the respondent for any mala fide purpose. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Zia-ulHassan v. State PLD 1984 SC 192 has observed as under:-- "The Court has no power to grant bail before arrest unless all the conditions laid down by the superior Courts from time to time are satisfied, the most essential of them being that the intended arrest would be tainted with mala fides which must be specifically stated. It is in this context also that the other condition of irreparable loss is to be viewed."
' The Hon'ble Supreme Court once again in the case of Malik Zafar Abbas (supra) while reiterating the view expressed earlier in a number of cases observed that in the absence of any element of unjustified harassm ent, false implication or ulterior motive either on part of prosecution or adversaries concerned, mala fides of intended arrest to insult or disgrace, the question of grant of pre-arrest bail does not arise. A prima facie case was made out against the respondent. The respondent was not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. His real son and nephew are still absconding.
7. In view of the above discussion, the ing bail to the respondent is not sustainable in law. Pre-arrest bail granted to respondent is cancelled.
Pre-arrest bail cancelled.