' Petitioners seeks pre-arrest bails in case F.I.R. No.404/04, dated 15-12-2004 under sections 337- A(i)/337-A(ii)/337-F(i)/394, P.P.C. Registered on the complaint of Muhammad Sarfraz at Police Station Chowk Azam District, Layyah.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that aforementioned criminal case was originally got registered by petitioner's party against Muhammad Azeem, Muhammad Ameen and Munir Ahmad under sections 337-A(i)/337-F(v)/337-L(2)/34, P.P.C. During the investigation petitioners along with Muhammad Sarfraz and Muhammad Iqbal were involved in cross-version recorded vide Zimni No.1 dated 15-12-2004 with the allegation that they caused injuries to Muhammad Azeem and Muhammad Ameen.
2. Petitioners were involved on the statement of Muhammad Azeem and Muhammad Amin in the cross-version.
3. Petitioners approached the learned trial Court for their pre-arrest bails, which were declined hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioners is that of further inquiry and the local police has falsely involved them in connivance with accused party. Further submits that it is yet to be determined which party was aggressor.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail petition and submits that petitioners were aggressors and section 394, P.P.C. Had been added. That the petitioners have mis-used the concession of bail, they did not appear before the learned trial Court when the order was announced. Further submit that they are not entitled for the concession of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Petitioners were allowed ad interim pre-arrest bail and after that they joined the investigation. During investigation section 394, P.P.C. Has been deleted by the police. Role attributed to the petitioner Riasat Ali is that while armed with Sota he caused injuries to Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Azam. Even if the recovery of Sota is effected that will not improve the case of the other party as injury attributed is an incised wound meaning thereby not by blunt weapon. Petitioner No.2 Maqbool Hussain was admittedly empty handed. Even otherwise case was originally got registered on behalf of petitioners side and accused of said case got recorded their cross-version implicating petitioners and other persons, therefore, false implication of the petitioner due to malice and mala fide intention cannot be ruled out. Bail already granted to the petitioners in the circumstances is hereby confirmed subject to their fresh furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of -learned trial Court.