' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---Two sets of accused persons, one to which the petitioners, Muhammad Nawaz and Abdul Waheed belong ("petitioners"), and another to which a number of co-accused belong ("co-accused") are nominated in case F.I.R. No.184 of 2000, dated 8-8-2000 lodged at Police Station Minchinabad alleging offences under sections 324/337-A (ii) (vi)/337-F (v)/148/149, P.P.C.
The petitioners were granted pre-arrest bail on 9-8-2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which petition they withdrew on 27-9-2000. On 1-10-2000 report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was filed in the learned trial Court by the Investigating Officer finding that the set of co-accused persons to be involved in the commission of offences alleged whilst opinion that the petitioners were innocent.
2. Trial in the case of the co-accused persons commenced thereafter in which the petitioners were never summoned. However, during the recording of prosecution evidence on 9-6-2004 the complainant P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief before the learned trial Court made an application for summoning the persons who had not been challaned including the petitioners. No order was passed on the application at this stage. The trial continued for another 3 years or so when on 3-3- 2007 the learned trial Court noted that a complete challan in the case had not been presented on its record; it was so directed and such a challan was placed on file on 28-3-2007. This shows the petitioners to be proclaimed offenders which is recorded in the order of the learned trial Court order, dated 28-3-2007.
3. Learned counsel submits that no proceedings under sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C., which predicate action under section 512, Cr.P.C, were taken by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the order, dated 28-3-2007 noting that the petitioners are proclaimed offenders is illegal and void. The petitioners secured pre-arrest bail from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge on 24-3- 2007 which was ultimately rejected on 28-5-2007 when they were arrested.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were never summoned by the learned trial Court, therefore, they did not absent themselves from Court and consequently, they could not be declared proclaimed offenders. The petitioners joined the investigation after 24-3- 2007 before they were arrested. They are in jail for the last 5 months or so. No recovery of crime weapons has been effected from them. The persons found guilty in challan, dated 1-10-200U have compromised with the complainant and the injured P.Ws. Wnerefor they were acquitted by the learned trial Court on 25-4-2007. At present therefore a good 7 years after the alleged incident, the petitioners have been arrested on the basis of police record in which contrary findings are given about the petitioners. As such fresh investigation must be undertaken to establish guilt or innocence of the petitioners. He points out that notwithstanding the remedies available to the complainant before the police hierarchy and Courts of law, no effort was made by the complainant to have either the investigation changed or its finding reviewed or the petitioners arrested for a period of nearly 42 mouths after the filing of first challan on 1-10-2000. The circumstances in which the case against the petitioners has been revived is alleged to create doubt and suspicion.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of bail since the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R., attributed specific role and they have admitted to have surrendered the weapons in under the amnesty scheme of the Government. He presses that the aforesaid surrender of weapons before the police suffices to corroborate the allegation made against the petitioners in the F.I.R.
6. Learned APG has also opposed the grant of bail and submits that default committed by the Investigating Officers cannot go to the benefit of the petitioners accused. It is, however, conceded that certain relevant portions of police record are missing about which departmental action has been initiated.
7. Notwithstanding the nomination of and specific role attributed to the petitioners there is lapse of 7 years since the occurrence alleged in the F.I.R. During this time the police has given two contradictory versions as to its investigational findings about the petitioners. More importantly, it is now admitted that investigation record is incomplete and not fully reliable therefore admittedly a fresh investigation needs to be undertaken. No corroborative recovery has been effected by the police; surrender of weapons under the aforesaid amnesty being unhelpful to directly link the petitioners with the commission of the alleged offence. More significantly in the mind of the Court the petitioners have not avoided due process of law, therefore, their attributed status of proclaimed offenders is not justified. Since that is an operative ground on the basis of which the petitioners have been dealt with by the learned Court below such treatment in the mind of Court is premature and presumptuous. In so far the involvement of the petitioners is concerned that will be established during the investigation on the basis of corroborative material that is yet to be collected. However, it is stated that no recovery has to be effected from the petitioners. The allegations alone made against the petitioners in the F.I.R. Are not sufficient to compel their pretrial imprisonment. The petition is accordingly accepted and the petitioners are admitted to post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with two sureties each in.The like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.