Wasif, Khalid Mehmood and Manzoor Ahmad seek their pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 772/2003 dated 30.10.2003 registered at Police Station Factory area. District Faisalabad for offences under Sections 324, 148, 149 PPC.
2. The allegation against the petitioners as narrated by the complainant in the FIR was that they alongwith their co-accused while armed with fire-arms assaulted the complainant party and indulged in firing as a result of which Liaquat. Ikram, Tahir, Asif, Azhar and Saifal were injured having received fire-arm injuries.
3. The petitioners' pre-arrest bail application has been turned down by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Faisalabad vide order dated 5.5.2004. Hence this application.
4. Mr. Zafar Iqbal Chohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of petitioners' plea for bail has argued that the investigation of this case had been transferred to D.S.P. by the order of this Court passed in Crl. Misc. No, 1346-B of 2004 which was a bail application of Muhammad Kashif co- accused of the petitioners and that the said D.S.P. had opined that it was the complainant party who had started aggression; that only pellet injuries had been suffered by the injured persons and as such the allegation that Khalid petitioner effectively used his 222 rifle stands negated, that four of the co-accused have also been admitted to post arrest bail and that no useful purpose would be served in sending the petitioners behind4the bars; that the case of the petitioners is one of further inquiry and they are entitled to the concession of bail. He has relied on Muhammad Ramzan versus Zafar Ullah and another (1986 SCM R 1380) to argue that if a Court comes to the conclusion while hearing bail after arrest plea that the case is one of further inquiry, then it would not be advisable not to confirm pre-arrest bail in the same case.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel at considerable length. The case was registered as far back as on 30.10.2003. A period of (6/2) month has elapsed and the petitioners have not yet surrendered to authorities. In fact they have been playing fast and loose with the process of the Court and in this context it may be advantageous to reproduce the observations of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while declining pre-arrest bail vide his order dated 5.5.2004 which runs as under:-- "It is admitted fact according to Para No, 4 of the petition filed by petitioners that petition for pre- arrest bail of Petitioner No, 3 Wasif son of Muhammad Afzal has been dismissed for two times by this Court whereas the bail petition of Petitioners Nos, 4 & 5 has been dismissed for four times for non-prosecution by his Court. A tendency has developed among offenders criminals that they file pre-arrest bail applications, get the same adjourned on one way or the other, get the same dismissed for non-prosecution and come with fresh bail applications to Court. In this way they play hide and seek with the Courts and police. The petition in hand is classic example of the same where pre-arrest bail application of Petitioner No, 3 dismissed for two times whereas pre-arrest bail application of Petitioners Nos, 4 & 5 has been dismissed for not less than four times. This tendency of offenders/criminals may not be approved by the Courts of law. Consequently Petitioners Nos, 3 to 5 who are duly nominated in the FIR, by no stretch of imagination are entitled to extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. Consequently Pre-arrest bail in hand to the extent of Petitioners Nos, 3 to 5 namely Wasif Khalid and Manzoor Ahmad is hereby dismissed. "
6. There are serious allegations against the petitioners in the FIR Recoveries of fire-arms have yet to be effected from them. They have been eluding the process of law for the last (6/2) months. Their shifty and devious conduct has been highlighted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. There is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.