' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.-Through this petition the petitioners seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.844, dated 17-7-2006 for offences under section 324/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Lower Mall, Lahore.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners While armed with 30 bore pistol and Kalashnikov fired at the complainant who escaped injury, however, the car of the complainant was damaged in the occurrence.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had been falsely involved in the case on account of family dispute with the complainant; that the only role ascribed to the petitioners was of ineffective firing; that Qari Imtiaz-ul-Haq who was designated the complainant submitted an affidavit exonerating the petitioners before the Investigating Officer; that during investigation, the petitioners were found innocent by the D.S.P., and that no empties had been recovered from the spot, as such, the petitioners were entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioners were named in the F.I.R. And specific role of firing with their respective weapons on the complainant was assigned to them; that the. F.I.R. Was lodged promptly, hence, false involvement of the petitioners was ruled out; that it was a day time occurrence, hence, there was no question of mistaken identity; that recovery of fire-arms had yet to be effected from the petitioner who had not joined the investigation; that the petitioners did not appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at time of confirmation of their ad interim bail in order to approach this Court, hence, in view of the conduct of the petitioners, they were not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail; that five empties of .30 bore pistol had been recovered from the spot by the police; that the opinion of the Investigation Officer was not binding on the Court particularly as not only empties were recovered from the spot but two witnesses who were Advocates had witnessed the occurrence, had appeared before the Investigating Officer and had got their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. That Qari Imtiaz-ul- Haq, whose affidavit had been relied upon by the petitioner's side, had also given an affidavit in favour of the complainant's side, hence, the same was of no consequence; that no mala tides had been alleged against the complainant or the police for false involvement of the petitioners in the case; and lastly that the offence under section 324, P.P.C. Was fully made out against the petitioners which was hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., hence the petitioners were not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. ' The F.I.R. Was lodged with promptitude as such, there was no time for the complainant for consultation, hence, the petitioners could not have been falsely involved in the case particularly as the occurrence was a day light occurrence and the same had been witnessed by two Advocates who had got their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Implicating the petitioners with the commission of offence. The petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. And specific role of firing at the complainant has been ascribed to them which is supported by the recovery of five empties of .30 bore pistol from the spot on the date of occurrence. The car in which the complainant was riding at the time of occurrence was also taken into possession by the police, which showed visible signs of damage with fire-arms. This further connects the petitioners with the prosecution case. A perusal of the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge reveals that when the application was fixed for confirmation of bail the petitioners failed to appear before the Court as such, the petition was dismissed. The conduct of the petitioners before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, further disentitles them to the grant of extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. No mala fides have been alleged by the petitioners against the complainant or the police for their false involvement in the case. Insofar as the affidavit given by Qari Imtiaz-ul-Haq is conferred it cannot be relied upon as he has given another affidavit in support of the prosecution case. The opinion of the police is not binding on the Court particularly in the instant case as the same is not based on any tangible material. Prima facie the offence under section 324, P.P.C. Is attracted to the case of the petitioners which is punishable with a sentence of 10 years, hence the same is hit by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. For what has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for grant of extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. Resultantly, this petition being without merit is dismissed.