' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- Pursuant to a direction of this Court Dr. Muhammad Shafique, D.P.O. Sheikhupura has appeared to submit that he had come to know about the misconduct of Muhammad Nazir S.-I. After he was informed about the order of this Court dated 17-11-2006. Further submits that he has suspended the said Nazir S.-I. And has appointed Rao Munir, Additional S.P. As Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry.
2. This Court is of the prima facie view, that either due to negligence or with some ulterior motive this S.-I. Has tried to destroy the case of the prosecution. Further more, after the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nazir S.-I. Wrote the statements of eye-witnesses and the injured under section 161, Cr.P.C. In back dates to meet his negligence, so he has also committed forgery. This Court would not like to comment any further because the D.P.O. Has already ordered inquiry in the matter. S.-I. Nazir was also summoned by this Court. According to S.- I. Muhammad Ashraf, the said Nazir, S.-I. Was served, but he is not present which shows that he has intentionally not appeared before this Court today. In view of the above, it is directed that the inquiry ordered by the D.P.O. Shall be completed within two weeks and action taken in this regard shall be communicated to this Court by the D.P.O. Sheikhupura through the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court without fail.
3. Now I would like to take up the bail cancellation matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassing cancellation of pre-arrest ed to the respondent Muhammad Shafi vide order, dated 26-9-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, contends that as far as hostility is concerned there is no background of enmity between the petitioner and the respondent; that in all there are six accused persons, amongst whom, four were named while two were arrayed as unknown accused persons; that except the petitioner, none of the accused has so far been arrested; that not only Lalkara but also act of firing is also attributed to the respondent and that it is a tit case for the cancellation of bail allowed to the respondent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the respondent is present in Court and although he is an old man but he is neither sick or infirm person and that he would support the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, while defending the impugned ing order, submits that only a Lalkara is attributed to the respondent; that he is seventy years of age; that the respondent tried his level best to get his co-accused arrested; that no descriptioh of weapon of offence was mentioned in the F.I.R.; that there is only one fire-arm injury on the person of the deceased and one on the person of injured P.W.; that according to the F.I.R. All the accused had fired at the complainant party and that he has been implicated in this case merely because his son is accused in the case. In support of the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the precedent case-law reported in PLD 1995 SC 34; PLD 2000 Kar. 74 and 2006 SCM R 66.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an application for cancellation of bail before arrest granted to the respondent Muhammad Shafi vide order, dated 26-9-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura on the three main grounds, firstly that only a Lalkara is attributed to the respondent, secondly, there is previous background of hostility between the parties and, thirdly, he is seventy years of age.
7. I have gone through the F.I.R. And the ing order passed in favour of the respondent Muhammad Shafi dated 26-9-2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura which is a detailed one. One should keep in mind that this a bail before arrest granted in the most heinous offence i.e. Murder in an occurrence in which one person lost his life and one was injured.
The allegation against the present respondent is that he along with his co-accused while armed with fire-arms, fired at the deceased and the injured P.W. Coupled with the fact that he had also raised a commanding and fatal Lalkara, so, it is incorrect to argue that he was only attributed a Lalkara during the occurrence. No hostility or enmity between the complainant party and the respondent has been brought on record either during the course of arguments before this Court or before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. There is no or mala fide on the part of the complainant party to falsely implicate the respondent in this case meaning thereby that ingredients for the grant of bail before arrest to the respondent are very much lacking in this case.
It is a bail before arrest and considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and bail after arrest are altogether different. Even otherwise, the recovery has yet to be effected from the respondent.
So far as old age of seventy years is croncerned, a photostat copy of the identity card of the respondent (not of NADRA) has been shown to this Court, according to which, his date of birth is 1938, so he is sixty-eight years of age, but the fact remains that he does not seem to be infirm or sick person and it is settled by now that mere old age is no ground for the grant of bail. Moreso, no documentary evidence has been placed on record whether the respondent is suffering from any life threatening disease. It is pertinent to mention here that his real son and four other co-accused are still at large and have not surrendered to the process of law coupled with the fact that the offence with which the respondent is alleged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In the backdrop of the above discussion this COurt is of the affirmed view that it is not a case of pre-arrest bail. The precedent case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and is not applicable in this case. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the bail before arrest granted to the respondent Muhammad Shafi vide order, dated 26-9-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura is hereby cancelled after having setting aside the impugned ing order.
Bail cancelled.