' SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.--- Submits that a false and frivolous case bearing F.I.R. No,280 of 2005 dated 30-7-2005 under sections 354, 148, 149 and 506, P.P.C. Has been registered at the Police Station Saddar Mian Channu, malafidely against the petitioner.
2. It is further contended that the petitioners have been found innocent in the four investigations conducted by (i) Muhammad Ashraf, S.-I. (ii) Saghir Hussain, S.-I. (iii) Kalbe Sajjad Inspector and finally by the D.S.P. (Investigation) Mian Channu. All these Investigating Officers found that no such occurrence ever took place and cancellation report was prepared by them. In last investigation conducted by Muhammad Saleem Maan, D.S.P. (Investigation) the petitioners were found guilty. It is also submitted that in order to protect the petitioners' honour and respect, they may be granted pre-arrest bail as the case has been registered malafidely and to bring bad name to them.
3. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this bail petition.
4. Arguments have been heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly the petitioners did not move before the learned Sessions Court for their pre-arrest bail for the reason that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mian Channu has already expressed his mind while rejecting the pre-arrest bail applications of the co-accused having similar role. The High Court can entertain pre-arrest bail of the accused. Reliance is place on the case of Muhammad Akbar Samoo and another v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1473 and Abdul Hai Siddiqui and 2 others v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 446.
6. Khair Din, petitioner, is stated to be armed but did not cause any injury to the complainant victim and relying on Abdul Raheem and others v. The State 2003 YLR 545, the petitioners are entitled to bail. Even otherwise the petitioners are also entitled to the concession of bail, as it is the question of liberty of the present petitioners. They were declared innocent during the three investigations and it was only in the last investigation that the petitioners have been found guilty and the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P..C. Grounds available to the petitioners at the time of post-arrest bail can also be taken into consideration at this stage. Mst. Zubaida Parveen v. State 2004 M LD 1812 is relied upon. Post-arrest bail has already been granted to the co- accused and the role of the present petitioners and the said co-accused is the same, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the confirmation of bail before arrest. In this regard Gulsher v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1482 is referred.
7. Under the circumstances, the pre-arrest bail already -granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.