1. ' Through this application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks cancellation of pre- arrest ed to respondent No.2 Nawaz by the learned Addl: Sessions Judge, Mian Channu District Khanewal, vide order dated 17-6-2004 in case F.I.R. No.134 of 2004, 'registered under sections 302/324/201/148/149 P.P.C. At Police Station Chub Kalan, Khanewal on the statement of the petitioner.
2. ' The brief facts mentioned in the F.I.R. Are that on 31-5-2004 the complainant/petitioner party was to appear in the Court of Addl: Sessions Judge, Mian Channu. According to him Dilawar, Bahawal and Nawaz Muhammad proceeded their journey on their bicycles, which were to be parked at Adda 75/15-L and therefrom they were to board the wagon bound for Mian Channu. The petitioner along with Saeed Ahmad and Qamar Zaman also followed them. At 5-30 a.m. When Dilawar and Bahawal along with Nawaz Muhammad Pahore reached near the land of Mansoor Sithar in the area of Chak No.75/15-L, Rajab armed with pistol, Haqnawaz armed with Pump Action, Muhammad Nawaz/respondent No.2 armed with hatchet. Allah Ditta armed with rifle, Tariq armed with .12 bore gun, Altaf armed with hatchet, Riaz armed with pistol, Iqbal alias Bali armed with rifle and Sobay Khan armed with rifle along with two unknown persons, also armed with firearm weapons emerged from both sides of bridge and Allah Ditta raised a Lalkara to take the revenge of the murder of Shabbir Hussain. Then Iqbal and Allah Ditta started firing. The shot fired by Iqbal alias Bali accused hit Dilawar and the shot fired by Allah Ditta hit Bahawal, who fell down and thereafter all the accused inflicted injuries with their respective weapons upon them. Nazar 'Muhammad tried to have save them and he was also injured by the accused persons. Dilawar and Bahawal died at the spot. Thereafter, the accused took away the dead bodies on motor cycles and dropped them in Thingi Canal. Hence, this case was registered.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.2 was named in the F.I.R. As an accused with specific role of causing injuries and he was armed with Kulhari; that one of the P.Ws.
4. Namely, Nazar Muhammad who is an independent witness being not related to any of the parties was also injured by the accused and he also specifically nominated respondent No.2 that he while armed with Kulhari had caused the injuries; that in the shape of statements of the eye-witnesses, the complainant and injured P.W. There was sufficient evidence on record to connect respondent No.2 with the commission of the crime, but bail before arrest has been granted to him on surmises and conjectures which is only meant to protect the innocent citizens if they are found to be involved for some ulterior motive; that the occurrence was committed when Dilawar and Bahawal deceased along with the complainant and other P.Ws. Were going to appear in the Court of learned Addl: Sessions Judge, Mian Channu for facing the murder trial of Shabbir nephew of respondent No.2; that heinous offence was committed by respondent No.2 along with other co- accused, wherein two persons had lost their lives and motive was also established, but while considering deeper merits of the case respondent No.2, has been allowed bail before arrest while ignoring that recovery was yet to be effected for respondent No.2, hence bail may be cancelled.
5. ' Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand opposes this application on the ground that valid reasons have been given by the learned Addl: Sessions Judge for the grant of bail to respondent No.2 and in fact it was a blind murder case, but Tahir Hussain complainant, who is an accused in case F.I.R. No.172 of 2002 while concocting a false story has involved all the family members of respondent No.2 in the present case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive; that there are contradictions in the medical evidence and the ocular account; that once bail has been granted to respondent No.1 it cannot be cancelled on the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner today and only general allegation of causing injuries was levelled in the F.I.R. Against respondent No.2, hence it was a fit case for grant of bail before arrest and this application may be dismissed.
6. ' Learned State counsel also opposes this application and supports the ing order. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Shabbir Hussain real nephew of respondent No.2 was murdered in the year 2002 whereupon F.I.R. No.172 of 2002 was recorded and trial in that case was fixed before the learned Addl: Sessions Judge Mian Channu on 31-5-2004. Admittedly the complainant and the deceased were accused in the said case and they had to appear on the said date in the Court.
7. The case of the prosecution is that both the deceased along with Naseer Muhammad proceeded their journey on bicycle and the complainant also followed them. It cannot be denied that respondent No.2 and other accused who were witnesses in the said case were aware of the fixation of the date in the said case and going of the deceased and the P.Ws. To appear in the Court for trial. Respondent No.2 was specifically named to be armed with Kulhari and all the 10 nominated accused along with two unknown persons according to the complainant had attacked upon both the deceased Dilawar and Bahawal, caused them injuries, murdered them, took their dead bodies on Motorcycles and had thrown them in the canal. Nazar Muhammad P.W. Who is not related to anybody when tried to rescue Dilawar and Bahawal deceased also received 9 injuries on his person. He also specifically nominated respondent No.2 and supported the version of the complainant.
8. The evidence so far collected during the investigation by the police prima facie connects respondent No.2 with the commission of the crime. The role attributed to respondent No.2 was also supported by the medical evidence as Dilawar deceased received 10 injuries with sharp edged weapon and Muhammad Nawaz respondent No.2 as well as Altaf were allegedly armed with Kulhari, Riaz was armed with Kassi and remaining accused were armed with pistol and guns etc. Similarly Bahawal deceased also received 12 injuries out of which 10 injuries were caused by sharp edged weapons while two injuries were as a result of fire-arms. In such circumstances prima facie case was made out against respondent No.2. It was a double murder case. The investigation is undergoing and recoveries are yet to be effected. Previous enmity between the parties was not denied. In such circumstances it was not a fit case for the grant of bail before arrest while considering the deeper merits of the case which is not permissible at bail stage and only tentative assessm ent of the evidence has to be made regarding the guilt of the accused. The grant of bail before arrest to respondent No.2 also amounted to hamper the investigation as the other accused have yet to be arrested and weapons of offence are also to be recovered. Mere previous enmity between the parties is no ground to grant bail before arrest in cases of heinous nature as it is always considered to be double edged weapon. The presence of the P.Ws. At the spot during the occurrence is not at all doubtful as all of them had to appear in the Court to face murder trial.
7. For the foregoing reasons this application is accepted, bail before arrest granted by learned Addl: Sessions Judge vide order dated 17-6-2004 to respondent No.2 is cancelled and he shall be committed to custody.
8. Pre-arrest bail cancelled.