' DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, J.-The applicants seek prearrest bail in Crime No, 60/2008 of Police Station, Kotdiji, Khairpur and ad interim bail was granted to them vide order dated 25-2-2008.
3(sic). Brief facts of the case are that there were strained relations between complainant and applicant Khadim Hussain. On 13-2-2008 at about 11-30 p.m. Applicants and others in a vehile, armed with deadly weapons, came to the house of complainant and started firing upon complainant and his sons who saved themselves by running into their house. On cries and firearm reports the people gathered and the accused persons ran away while firing and issuing threats of dire consequences.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants apprehend their unjustified arrest on account of ulterior motives particularly on the part of the police. In case they are arrested, they would be met with third grade degree treatment in order to extort confession on the dictation of the Investigating Officer, which shall cause them an irreparable humiliation and injury. The applicants have physically surrendered before this Court and pray that their honour and dignity be rescued from the motivated police; that there is reasonable explanation for directly moving pre- arrest bail in this Court as the applicants genuinely have apprehension of their and imminent unjustified arrest with the effect of virtual restraint on them, that the applicants are educated, most respectable persons belong to notable families of the area. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that every case is to be adjudged and decided on its own merits; that the applicants tried their best to approach the learned trial Court but the same was cordoned by the motivated police in police uniform as well as in civil dresses. Consequently the applicants approached directly to this Court for the grant of pre-arrest bail, in such particular circumstances; that the allegations against the applicants are vague, ill-founded and general in nature. While saying so the learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the case of Jam Sadiq Ali v. State 1999 PCr.LJ 1910, State v. Mukhtar Ahmed Awan 1991 SCM R 322, Dr. M. Shoaib Saddal v. State 1997 SCM R 1234 and a case of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 6.
5. Learned State Counsel states that since the applicants are educated and respectable persons who have not misused the concession of bail, consequently he raised no objection to the confirmation of their interim pre-arrest bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned State Counsel, perused the material on record and gone through the case laws. In view of the parameters laid down by the Hon' ble apex Court and no objection raised by the learned State Counsel for confirmation of bail, the learned counsel for the applicants succeeded to make out the case of the applicants for confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail. In the cases of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi (supra) and case of Jam Sadiq Ali (supra), this Court while relying upon the earlier cases decided by the Hon' ble apex Court, this Court directly entertained applications of the applicants for grant of pre-arrest bail, inter alia established that they were prevented from approaching the learned court concerned.
7. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the applicants are applicable in the instant case and the applicants were justified in directly approaching this Court in the circumstances.
8. In view of the above discussions, interim pre-arrest to the applicants is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.