' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,440 dated 31- 10-2005 registered under section 506, P.P.C. At Police Station City Mandi Bahauddin.
2. The brief allegation in the F.I.R. Is that the complainant is a practising lawyer at Mandi Bahauddin.
Abdul Ghaffar Khan petitioner had civil litigation with his brothers and the complainant was a counsel of the petitioner. The petitioner was residing in Italy for the purpose of employment. About two months ago he alleged that the complainant had not properly prosecuted the case being in league with the other party and also used to abuse him. Now he had returned to Mandi Bahauddin and on 29-10-2005 entered in the office of the complainant while armed with pistol and raised the same saying that the complainant had not properly pursued the case and he would not leave him alive. Then he pressed the trigger of the pistol which missed and he while grappling with the complainant attempted to bring him out of the office. In the meanwhile Muhammad Arshad and Ch. Umar Hayat Waraich, Advocates, came and the petitioner ran away who also threatened the complainant that after murdering him, he will leave the country.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case is totally false and actually the complainant was counsel for the petitioner who was residing at Italy and was pursuing the case; that the complainant taking advantage of absence of the petitioner used to tease the wife of the petitioner on Telephone and also whenever she visited the office, due to which reason the brief was taken from him and Muhammad Hanif was engaged as counsel; which caused annoyance to the complainant; that the petitioner along with his wife had come to the office of Sher Muhammad Advocate who was pursuing the case when Ch. Farooq Advocate complainant along with four unknown persons attacked the petitioner and gave fist and kick blows and the wife of the petitioner was also maltreated whose shirt was torn, but due to the influence of the complainant case was not registered and even the petition filed under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. To get registered the case was not entertained and now this case has been got lodged malafidely as a counterblast; that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that offence under section 324, P.P.C. Is not made out as no murderous assault was made on the complainant; that the first part of section 506, P.P.C. Is bailable and the second part which is non-bailable is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is also contended that the petitioner is innocent. The petitioner and his wife are ready to take oath by putting their hands on the head of their children and also on Holy Quran that no such occurrence had taken place and the petitioner has been falsely implicated because the complainant used to tease the wife of the petitioner and when the objection was made and counsel was changed he became inimical as he was in league with the other party. It is also contended that the bail is meant to protect the innocent citizens and the petitioner is an innocent citizen against whom the case has been got lodged with mala fide intention and ulterior motive and the liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed on such allegations.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant contends that the complainant is a practising lawyer for the last more than thirty-one years who is a respectable person and the petitioner had taken the law in his own hands. Sections 324, P.P.C. Has been added which falls within the prohibitory clause and it is not a fit case for grant of bail before attest.
5. The petitioner has moved this application directly in this Court on the ground that the complainant is a practising lawyer and due to his influence no Advocate is ready and willing to prosecute his application at District Level. He also does not expect in the circumstances any fairplay at Mandi Bahauddin and has moved this petition directly to this Court. I have considered the arguments and find it a" fit case for direct entertainment of this application in this Court for bail before arrest. Even notice by considering this fact was issued to the State and now the application is decided on merits.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
The police initially had applied section 506, P.P.C. On the basis of the facts mentioned in the written application wherein the allegation was only levelled that trigger was pressed by the petitioner but it was missed. Supplementary statement was made on 31-10-2005 by the complainant in which he claimed that he was fired at straight and an attempt was made to murder him. Muhammad Arshad a private person and Ch. Umar Hayat Waraich Advocate also got recorded their statements on 31-10-2005 and though it has been mentioned therein that the petitioner was armed with pistol but the story introduced by the complainant in his application and through the supplementary statement about pressing of the trigger by the petitioner and firing at the complainant has not been mentioned. Both the witnesses only have stated that the petitioner had abused and threatened the complainant. So there is contradiction in the statements of the complainant and both the alleged eye-witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. In their statements got recorded before the police.
7. The complainant seems to have exaggerated the story in order to make out a case falling under section 324, P.P.C. Which prima facie is not made out and the offence under section 506, P.P.C.
Falling within the first part prima facie is made out from the facts of the case which is bailable. Even otherwise both the parties admitted that the complainant was engaged as a counsel who was superseded by another Advocate. The petitioner was residing in Italy and the case was being pursued by the wife of the petitioner. The complainant has not shown any motive for commission of the offence by the petitioner and only stated that he was not pursuing the case properly according to the petitioner, who attacked upon him. The complainant might have a grievance that the brief was taken away from him.
8. The case of the petitioner and his wife is that the complainant used to tease the wife of the petitioner whereupon complaint was made and due to this reason this false case has been got registered as a counterblast. The matter requires thorough probe regarding the motive part as different stand has been taken by both the parties. The petitioner and his wife are present and they are ready to take oath on Holy Quran about the falsity of the present case got lodged by the complainant and that the complainant used to tease the wife of the petitioner. Even they are ready to say so by putting their hands on the head of their children.
' In such circumstances the possibility of false implication of the petitioner in the present case cannot be ruled out. The liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed on the vague allegations and minor dispute to wreak the vengeance of the other party. Bail before arrest is meant to protect the innocent citizen found to have involved malafidely with ulterior motive. The complainant has improved his story subsequently which does not find mentioned in the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses got recorded on the same day under section 161, Cr.P.C. Even otherwise the Advocate whose Chambers were adjacent to the Chamber of the complainant had not witnessed the occurrence or attracted to the spot and they have not been cited as witnesses. The petitioner is not previously involved in any such-like cases 1who was working abroad and had come to Pakistan for some period. The present case against him seems to be doubtful got lodged under some suspicious circumstances. Even the time of occurrence has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. Merely because the recovery of pistol is to be effected from the petitioner, he cannot be sent to jail as no fire-arm injury was caused to the complainant. Hence this application is accepted and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 10-11-2005 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within seven days. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when required by the police.