The petitioners who are accused in case FIR No. 114 dated 27.4.2006 under Section 324/452 PPC P.S. Sadar Burewala, seek pre-arrest bail in the said case.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the fire arm injury caused to Muhammad Ashraf complainant is attributed to Ijaz petitioner, whereas, Amjad petitioner was empty handed and the only allegation against him is of holding the complainant in Japha. Further submits that the injury attributed to Ijaz is self inflicted and although. the Medical Board was constituted to verify the opinion of thesMedical Officer but neither the Medical Officer nor the Medical Board recorded any expressed findings to this effect and the Medical Board only agreed with the opinion of the Medical Officer, hence the case of Ijaz petitioner is one of further inquiry. Lastly, it is argued that parties are cousins inter-se and civil litigation in respect of some property is also going on between the parties.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by state counsel has opposed this petition by contending that both the petitioners who are brothers, launched attack on the complainant with common intention and entered his house by night; that Ijaz petitioner incapacitated the complainant by having JAPHA and provided a chance to his brother Amjad Hussain co-accused who caused fire-arm injury to the complainant which though hit on his leg yet the fact remains that the petitioners launched attack on the complainant with guilty intent and that as the offence under Section 324 PPC is punishable to the extent of ten years and presence of injury on the leg of the complainant excludes the possibility of any mala fide on the part of the complainant therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail, which is an extra-ordinary relief granted by the Court to a person who genuinely, apprehends his arrest in a false case. Lastly, it is argued that petitioners slipped away from the Court of learned Sessions Judge at the time of announcement of the order; therefore, they do not deserve any extra-ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. Arguments considered. Record perused.
6. Admittedly, Amjad petitioner was empty handed at the relevant time and only allegation against' him is one of keeping the complainant in Japha causing no injury to him, therefore, his vicarious liability within the 'meanings of Section 324 PPC cannot be determined at this stage, hence his case is covered by proviso to Section 498 Cr.P.0 being of further inquiry. Accordingly, this application to the extent of Amjad Hussain Petitioner No. 1 is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to him is confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
7. However, the case of Ijaz Petitioner No. 2 is distinguishable. He is alleged to be equipped with fire- arm and also caused injury on the leg of the complainant supported by medical evidence, hence, his involvement in the case for the time being cannot be considered as one tainted with any mala fide, therefore; he is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. This application to the extent of Ijaz Ahmad Petitioner No. 2 is therefore, dismissed.