' M BILAL KHAN, J.--- The petitioner/complainant had lodged F.I.R. No,103 of 2005 dated 18-3-2005, at Police Station Saddar, District Sargodha, for offence under sections 452/34, P.P.C.
2. The allegation as contained in the F.I.R. Was that Ahmad Khan son of Lala, Mulazim Hussain, Khadim Hussain and Muhammad Azim, sons of Ahmad Khan, respondents Nos.2 to 5 respectively, armed with Sotas while scaling over the wall had entered the house of the complainant and had caused injuries to his daughters namely Shamsa Kanwal, Farhat Batool and his wife Azra Bibi. It was also alleged that his son Naveed Iqbal had also been injured. One of the witnesses namely Mazhar son of Ahmad Khan who had been attracted to the scene on the alarm raised by the members of the complainant's family was also injured.
' The motive according to the complainant was that on 15-3-2005 his daughter Farhat Batool had hit a dog of the accused party with a stick, which had angered and infuriated the accused party prompting them to raid the house of the complainant and causing injuries as stated in the F.I.R.
3. Respondents Nos.2 to 5 applied for their pre-arrest bail, in the Court of Session at Sargodha and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order, dated 19-4-2005 allowed pre-arrest bail to them. It is the said order which has been challenged by the petitioner/complainant through this petition for cancellation of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have perused the record.
5. A plain look at the order dated 19-4-2005 reveals that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had given undue weight to the so-called delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R. He did not appreciate the fact that the complainant was a petty wagon driver and that generally the police are reluctant and hesitant in recording F.I.Rs, The other consideration which heavily prevailed with the learned Court in granting bail to the respondents was that the police had come to the conclusion that no trespass had been committed and as such section 452, P.P.C. Was not applicable. A perusal of the record suggests otherwise. According to the police investigation, the respondents had trespassed into the house of the complainant and as such section 452, P.P.C. Was fully applicable. I do not want to go further into the subtleties of the case lest any observation thereon prejudices either of the sides. Suffice it to say that there is a serious allegation against the respondents that they had trespassed into the house of the complainant and had subjected the women-folk to extreme insult and indignity. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 5 has not been able to point out any malice or ill-will harbored by the complainant against the accused persons named in the F.I.R. He has also not been able to point out any unique feature of the case entitling them to the grant of pre-arrest bail. A copy of F.I.R. No,245 dated 10-6-2005 registered at the instance of Ahmad Khan son of Lala, (respondent No,2), which has been presented by the learned counsel for the respondents, in fact shows that the respondents had been trying to manufacture evidence in their favor and had thus been misusing the concession of pre-arrest bail. Instead of helping the respondents this F.I.R. Goes against them.
6. I have observed that Ahmad Khan (respondent No,2) who is present in the Court, is an old man with a hunched figure and appears to be unwell.
7. Resultantly this petition is allowed and pre-arrest bail allowed to respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5 is hereby recalled. Insofar as Ahmad Khan, respondent No,2 is concerned, in view of his old age and fragile health I am not recalling the bail order to his extent.