1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, C.J.--- Applicant Dr. Riaz Ahmed was granted interim pre-arrest bail on 8-4-2008 in F.I.R. No,78 of 2008, under section 337-F, (iv) Q&D read with 353/332/186, P.P.C. Police Station Mubeena Town.
2. ' The facts giving rise to this bail application as stated by the complainant in the F.I.R. Are as under:- - "I am posted at Karachi University of last two years. On 31-3-2008, I was on duty at picket Mian Silver Jubilee Gate, Karachi, University along with Sentry Muhammad Sualeh. Some unpleasant incidents of violence and beating were taking place between two rival student groups in Karachi University. Therefore, administration of Karachi University passed an order to close the Main gate and no one was permitted to enter the gate or go out of the University. At about 1715 hrs. Prof. Dr. Riaz came in his car and asked to open the gate so that he be able to go out from the University.
3. Sentry Muhammad Sualeh responded that as per order of Administration this gate cannot be opened. However, he may try the Staff Gate for going out, upon this Prof. Dr. Riaz misbehaved and after alighting from the vehicle he came to Sentry and pulled away his official weapon and started beating, due to which rifle fell down and its Sangeen was broken. Then Dr. Riaz scuffled with the complainant and twisted his right hand and hit it on the ground/footpath as a result his right hand and hit it on the ground (sic)."
4. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that on Monday, March 31, 2008, at about 4-45 p.m., according to usual schedule, the applicant was on his way back to home from his office, when he approached Karachi University's Silver Jubilee Gate he saw a motorcycle being allowed in by four Ranger Personnel manning the gate (Hawaldar Anwar-ul-Haq, Ehtisham and two others) along with two University Security Guards. Upon reaching the gate, the applicant showed them the entry sticker on car, which displayed his credentials and showed his identity. The Ranger Personnel (named above) started arguing that the gate is closed and the applicant cannot go through. The applicant argued that when a motorcycle can be allowed to go, then why the applicant cannot go out but they started using abusive and foul language. The applicant asked the University Security Guards to call the Campus Officer and after a few minutes he managed to contact him on telephone and told that the Rangers are threatening and abusing him. Four Hawaldars attacked him by using sticks, rifles, punches on his head, back and legs. This incident was witnessed by many employees of the University. At about 5-15 p.m. a senior office of Rangers namely Mr. Ijaz came to the scene and tried to take the applicant away on refusal he threatened the applicant with highly abusive language and thereafter the applicant was apologized by the Vice-Chancellor and Lt. Col. Iftikhar and a statement of the applicant was recorded by AAJ TV. Thereafter the applicant was taken to Agha Khan Hospital for necessary treatment and then informed the Police about the said incident and requested them to lodge an F.I.R. But all in vain.
5. ' On 5-3-2008 the applicant moved an application under section 22-A of Cr.P.C. Before the learned District Judge, Karachi for lodged an F.I.R. Which was allowed. Almost all the newspapers reported the incident with completely different versions as narrated by the complainant in this case. It is contended that since the applicant is an internationally recognized Professor, therefore, out of ill will and mala fide the complainant in connivance with the University Administration hatched and narrated a false story in the F.I.R. With ulterior motive in order to cause irreparable loss and humiliation to the applicant. It is further contended that he Ranger Personnel are not in good terms with the applicant as on many occasions the applicant raised voice against their unjustified and unreasonable conduct.' in the University. Therefore, the present F.I.R. Is an offshoot of their vengeance.
6. ' On 3-4-2008 at about 11 p.m. When the applicant was out of his house, some people in plain clothes and some in uniform came and remained there for two hours in order to arrest the applicant. The prosecution in connivance with the so-called complainant launched the F.I.R. With ill will and mala fide and in order to save the real culprits. The mala fide of the complainant and the prosecution is apparent from the allegations contained in the F.I.R., which totally belied by the complainant of the applicant. This is a case of two versions, which require further inquiry. There is no probability that trial will culminate in the conviction of the applicant. The applicant is a respectable and highly qualified person and has name and fame amongst his students and his arrest will cause disgrace, humiliation in the society. The alleged offence is not a heinous in nature and there exist no reasonable ground, for refusal of bail.
7. ' In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and others 1996 SCM R 1845, wherein it has been held that bail is to be allowed if it appears to the Court that there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into the guilt of the accused. Now what would constitute as sufficient grounds for further enquiry would depend on the peculiar facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down for that purpose. Every hypothetical question which can be imagined would not make it a case of further enquiry simply for the reason that it can be answered by the trial Court subsequently after evaluation of evidence. Broadly speaking, the condition laid down in clause (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is that there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into his guilt which means that the question should be such which has nexus with the result of the case and may show or tend to show that accused is not guilty of the offence with which he is charged". It is further held in case of counter version arising from the same incident, one given by complainant in F.I.R. And the other given by the opposite party that contentions raising questions as to which version in the two F.I.Rs, is correct and which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed against can be gone into and decided by trial Court only after elaborate evaluation of the evidence recorded by it and not at the bail stage". He has also referred Jam Sadiq Ali v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 1910 (Karachi) by contending that merits can also be touched upon in a case of bail before arrest. Reliance is also placed on the case of Meran Bux v. The State PLD 1989 SC 347.
8. ' The learned Additional Advocate-General for the State contended that the applicant is not cooperating with the Investigating Officer; that the applicant has beaten the Ranger personnel who got fracture and in such circumstances he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
9. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the State.
10. This is a bail before arrest application. Counter versions are given by the complainant, the applicant and the daily newspapers. There has been disturbance in the University in which the applicant and Rangers were involved and some unpleasant incidents happened with the applicant and the Rangers including the complainant. The principles of bail before arrest and after arrest are different. The applicant has proved the ingredients of bail before arrest. It is yet to be determined at the trial as to which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed. Hence, the contentions relating to these questions can be gone into and decided by the trial Court after elaborate evaluation of the evidence recorded by it. I would like to point out in no uncertain terms that the observations made by me in this order is confined to tentative assessment made for the purpose of disposal of bail application and is not intended to influence the mind of the trial Court, which is free to appraise the evidence strictly according to its merits and the law at the time of disposal of the case which of course, it is needless to say, is the function of the trial Court.
11. ' With the aforementioned reasons, I confirm the bail granted to the applicant on the same terms.