Abdul Hameed Dogar, J.--Petitioner through this petition seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 32/07 registered with Police Station Sarai Moghal, Kasur under Sections 452, 506, 324, 337-H(ii), 148 & 149 PPC.
2. The prosecution story as narrated by complainant Muhammad Luqman in the FIR is that petitioner alongwith other co accused after reaching in the house of complainant made aerial firing with intention to vacate the disputed plot about which, litigation was pending before the competent Court. On the intervention of the villagers the petitioner ran away from the spot leaving behind rifle, which was produced before the police.
3. Petitioner applied for bail before arrest before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki which was dismissed on 6.4.2007. Feeling aggrieved, he approached the learned High Court through Crl.
Mic. No. 2706-B of 2007 which was also dismissed by a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore vide impugned order.
4. We have heard Sardar Latif Khan Khosa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Arshad Ali Ch., learned counsel for the complainant at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore has failed to appreciate the facts and law of the case in its true perspective and has drawn wrong conclusion due to which gross mis-carriage of justice has taken place in the case. According to him, petitioner has been falsely involved in this case due to mala fide of the complainant party in collusion with the local police. He further contended that two co- accused namely, Muhammad Siddique and Majeed who were named in the FIR have been declared innocent during the investigation as they were not present at the place of occurrence thus the entire case of the complainant has become doubtful and the case is of further inquiry. He next contended that on 28.1.2007 petitioner alongwith Mahmood Ahmad and Arif went to the house of Muhammad Sididque and on their return they were stopped by the complainant party who took the petitioner into the baithak of Muhammad Luqman and manhandled him beside his rifle, mobile phone and cash were snatched. The matter was reported to the police but the FIR was not lodged due to mala fide intention. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner approached the learned High Court through Writ Petition No. 1242/Q of 2007 for quashment of FItt which was disposed of on 20.2.2007 with the direction to the SP(Investigation) to record his version mentioned above, but all in vain. He further contended that recovery of licensed rifle from petitioner has been planted as the date of recovery memo of rifle has been changed, as sueh petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail before arrest.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned order and contended that petitioner was named in the FIR. He was found guilty during the course of investigation thus he is not entitled to the concession of bail before arrest.
7. We have gone through the impugned order and are of the view that the same is unexceptionable and does not call for interference. It is the settled principle of law that bail before arrest can be granted when the arrest of accused is eminent, with ulterior motive, mala fide or is due to false implication apparent on the face of record. Examining the case of respondent on the above touchstone, we are persuaded to agree, that petitioner has failed to point out any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant. He has been named in the FIR and specific role of aerial firing has been attributed to him. The recovery of licensed rifle of petitioner from the place of incident shows his involvement in the offence. The petitioner was found involved in the commission of offence by two Investigating Officers. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any substance stands dismissed and leave to appeal refused. The order dated 29.5.2007 whereby petitioner was granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail by this Court is recalled.
8. The above reasonings are tentative in nature and confined only to the extent of matter qua cancellation of pre-arrest bail. The same will not influence the trial of the petitioner, which is yet to commence.