' M. BILAL KHAN, J. --- Mehmood Ahmad alias Moodi son of Muhammad Yousaf, the petitioner, seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,9 of 2006, registered at Police Station Sarai Mughal, Pattoki, District Kasur, for offences under sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii)/34, P. P. C .
2. The case of the prosecution as it unfolded in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Muhammad Iqbal son of Islam Din, the complainant, was that on 8-1-2006 at 7-00 p.m. His cousin Ali Sher had gone to the Khokha of Mehmood alias Moodi, the present petitioner, to buy cigarette and Pan (Betel-leaf) where he had an argument with the petitioner, Maqsood alias Maqsoodi, Farooq alias Nikka and Muhammad Yousaf who were already present there started hurling abuses at his cousin Ali Sher whereupon Ali Sher asked them not to do so; Mehmood Ahmad alias Moddi, the petitioner, picked up a knife and Maqsood alias Maqsoodi raised a Lalkara that Ali Sher be done away with; Farooq gave a slap to Ali Sher and felled him on the ground; thereafter the petitioner caused a Chhuri blow to Ali Sher on the left side of his head who became unconscious on account of profuse bleeding; Maqsood alias Maqsoodi etc. Kept on causing physical violence to Ali Sher, they also kept on raising Lalkaras that he would be finished; the alarm raised in the transaction attracted Mursaleen son of Muhammad Aslam, Zulfiqar son of Haji Alla-ud-Din and Muhammad Arif son of Muhammad Iqbal, whereupon the accused fled from the scene while extending threats. After 10/15 minutes, while the complainant was arranging for his injured cousin to be removed to the hospital and had sent for a vehicle, Maqsood alias Maqsoodi, Mehmood alias Mehmoodi, Farooq alias Nikka and Yousaf re-appeared and Mehmood alias Moodi, the petitioner, who at that time was armed with a .12 bore gun fired a shot straight at Munawar Ali which hit him at his back, another shot fired by him hit Muhammad Ashraf alias Kali, a passerby, in his abdomen; the assailants left the scene after extending threats of murder. Resultantly, the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. The petitioner along with his co-accused applied for his pre-arrest bail in the Court of Session on 16-1-2006 and was allowed ad interim pre-arrest bail. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, vide order, dated 20-3-2006 declined to confirm the same and dismissed his application. Hence the instant petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record brought by Muhammad Anwar A.S.-I. Police Station Sarai Mughal, District Kasur.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a cross-version had been recorded at the instance of Maqsood alias Maqsoodi accused on 21-1-2006 wherein Ali Sher, Jaggi, Anwar, Rambo, Nadeem, Munawwar and two unknown persons had been arrayed as accused persons, is sufficient unto itself to make the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry; that there is a delay of five days in lodging the F.I.R. Which has not been plausibly explained and that this circumstance alone shows that the same had been lodged after due deliberation and consultation; that one of the passerby who had been injured in the transaction namely Muhammad Ashraf alias Mani son of Muhammad Sarwar had sworn an affidavit wherein he had categorically stated that the injury received by him had been caused by Ali Sher which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful entitling the petitioner to the grant of pre-arrest bail. They finally argued that the fire-arm injury attributed to the petitioner is subject-matter of re-examination by the Medical Board; therefore, this Court may restrain itself at this stage to refuse pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
6. On the other hand Rana Muhammad Arif, the learned counsel for the complainant and Ms. Rahat Majeed, the learned State Counsel argued that the petitioner has been specifically nominated in the F.I.R. With a definite role; that from the narrative of the F.I.R. It becomes abundantly clear that the petitioner acted in a very callous and heartless manner and after causing a very serious Chhuri blow to the injured did not content himself and re-emerged at the scene after fifteen minutes while armed with a .12 bore gun and effectively used the same. The learned State Counsel also submitted that from the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner appears to be the main moving force behind the incident and his involvement in the case is duly spelled out in the F.I.R. As also in the investigation which has been carried out so far. They submitted that opinion of guilt has been rendered against the petitioner in the investigation carried out so far.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record I have come to the conclusion that one of the basic prerequisites for the grant of pre-arrest bail i,e, malice on the part of the complainant or the police is conspicuously missing in this case. The very registration of cross-examination at the instance of the accused party shows that the police are not unfavorably disposed towards the accused in the main F.I.R. The major sections in the cross-version i,e, 324, 379, P.P.C. Have since been deleted. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioner have not been able to point out any special feature of the case entitling the petitioner to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. This petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Pre-arrest .