' The petitioners seek bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,48 of 2005 registered on 15-1-2005 in Police Station Jaranwala, District Faisalabad under sections 337-F(iv), 337-F(i), 337-A(i), 337-L(ii), 34, P . P.
C.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Anwar Ali, complainant relating to an occurrence which had taken place on 12-1-2005 and in the course of which the accused petitioners who were allegedly armed with iron rods, iron pipes and Toka had attacked the complainant party and had caused injuries to Arshad and Ashraf, the brothers of the complainant and Muhammad Iqbal, the father of the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the story narrated in the F.I.R. Was false and fabricated and the registration of the case was aimed at humiliation and victimization of the petitioner; that litigation was already going on between the parties in respect of landed property; that petitioner No,3 is an old and infirm person and had received as many as seven injuries on his person during the Occurrence and who had filed an application before the S.H.O. Regarding the same occurrence on 13-1-2005 but instead of registering the case on the basis of his application, the police registered F.I.R. On the basis of the application of Anwar Ali, complainant on 15-1-2005; that the injuries of petitioner No,3 were suppressed in the F.I.R. That the accused of the counter- version of the occurrence have already been granted bail; that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and their physical incarceration will not serve any useful purpose and hence under the circumstances of the case, they be granted pre-arrest bail.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the State have resisted the petition.
5.., I have carefully considered the arguments from both sides and have perused the record.
6. So far as Allah Ditta, petitioner No,3 is concerned, although he is also named in the F.I.R. As one of the culprits, yet he is an old and aged person who is stated to be about 70 years of age. He had himself received as many as seven injuries on his person during the occurrence and he had also submitted an application before the S.H.O. For the registration of case against Anwar All etc. On 13- 1-2005. However, the police registered the F.I.R. Two days later on the application of Anwar Ali, complainant. Since petitioner No,3 was himself injured in this occurrence and since he is an aged and infirm person, he is clearly entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
7. So far as petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, they are specifically named in the F.I.R. And a specific role is attributed to them. Sajid petitioner was allegedly armed with an iron rod at the time of occurrence and had given a blow with the same on the head of Arshad, the brother of the complainant and had given second blow on his face and thereafter another blow on the right side of his face. As regards Abid petitioner No,2, he was allegedly armed with an iron pipe at the time of occurrence and had hit Ashraf below his right eye and had given another blow on his head. He had also given a blow with the iron pipe on the back of Ashraf; P.W. Sajid accused had allegedly given another blow that had hit Ashraf on his right knee.
8. Even though there is cross-version of the occurrence in this case, yet in spite of it under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the present petitioners namely Abid and Sajid do not appear to be entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.
9. In view of what has been stated above, the bail application to the extent of petitioner No,3 Allah Ditta is accepted and the pre-arrest bail earlier granted to him vide order of this Court dated 8-3- 2005, is hereby confirmed, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,35, 000 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within. Seven days. The bail application to the extent of Sajid and Abid, petitioners Nos.1 and 2 is however, dismissed and the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to them i,e, to petitioners Nos.1 and 2 is hereby withdrawn.