' M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Iqbal son of Muhammad Hussain, the petitioner, had lodged F.I.R. No,330 of 2005 dated 27-7-2005, at Police Station Samanabad, Lahore for offences under section 337-A(i), 452, 148, 149, P.P.C. Against respondents Nos.1 to 3 and others.
2. The case of the complainant as it unfolded in the aforesaid F.I.R. Was that he was a resident of House No,11-A, Street No,16, Gul Zaib Colony, Samanabad, Lahore, on 26-7-2005 at 4-10 p.m. He was present in his house when Zahid and Tahir sons of Abdul Ghani (respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively) along with their mother Jamila Beguin (respondent No,3) and three unknown persons, all armed with fire-arms and Dandas etc. Came to his house and enquired about Muhammad Iqbal; they commanded them to send Iqbal outside proclaiming that they would not spare him alive that day and that they would teach him a lesson for levelling allegation of theft against their men; on hearing the noise when he tried to come out of the room by opening the door all of them forcibly entered into the house; Zahid caused blow with the Butt of his pistol on his head whereas Tahir caused blow with his pistol near his eye as a result whereof blood started oozing out; the unknown persons who were accompanying them started belabouring him with their Dandas; on his alarm the residents of Mohallah gathered there, out of whom Shahid Hassan son of Muhammad Akram, Ghulam Rasool son of Malik Muhammad Ali after witnessing the occurrence rescued him from the assailants; Zahid, etc. Left the scene while brandishing their respective weapons and issuing threats of murder. Resultantly the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. Muhammad Tahir, Muhammad Zahid and Mst. Jamila Begum applied for their bail in the Court of Session at Lahore and were allowed pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide his order, dated 9-9-2005. It is the said impugned order, which has been challenged by Muhammad Iqbal petitioner by moving this application for cancellation of bail.
4. I have heard Rana Muhammad Anwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Maqsood Buttar, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 as also Hafiz Maqsood Ahmad, Advocate for the State and the record brought by Muhammad Afzal, A.S.-I., Police Station Samanabad, Lahore has also been perused with the help of the learned counsel for the State.
5. A plain look at the impugned order, dated 9-9-2005 would disclose that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while extending the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail to respondents Nos.1 to 3 had undertaken an extensive survey of the material available on record and had recorded findings on the subtleties of the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took it for granted that since the complainant was an Office Superintendent in the Police Department; therefore, he must have used his influence. Another ground which weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge in granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents was that the voters list for the year 2000-2001 showed the complainant to be a resident of Sheikhupura and quite amazingly the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that it was yet to be seen whether he was resident of Street No,16 Gul Zeb Colony or not. The possession by the respondents of the departmental Identity Card of the complainant was yet another circumstance, which was pressed in aid of granting bail to the respondents which again was not a very relevant consideration. Without further dwelling on the merits of the case it can safely be stated that the impugned order proceeds on conjectures and the learned Additional Sessions Judge had travelled beyond the realm of tentative assessm ent of the material available on the record. Surprisingly the basic prerequisites for the grant of pre-arrest bail viz. Malice on the part of the complainant or the police had not been adverted to by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The impugned order on the face of it being arbitrary and conjectural cannot be sustained.
6. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the pre-arrest bail allowed to respondents Nos.1 and 2 namely Muhammad Tahir and Muhammad Zahid sons of Abdul Ghani is hereby recalled.
7. Insofar as Mst. Jamila Begum Wife of Abdul Ghani (respondent No,3) is concerned, she is an elderly woman, therefore, I am not inclined to recall the concession of pre-arrest bail allowed to her. This petition to her extent is hereby dismissed. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 shall be committed to custody.