' ABDUL SATTAR GORAYA, J.---The petitioners were granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail vide order, dated 18-2-2009 in case F.I.R. No,6, dated 2-1-2009, registered under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station City Bhawalnagar.
2. The petitioners Nos.1 and 2, in the course of investigation conducted by the Police, have been found guilty on the charge of abetment and they have been challenged under section, 109, P.P.C. As far Sharafat Ali, he was armed with hatchet and inflicted injury on the person of Fazal Elahi complainant. Muhammad Imran initially was not named in the F.I.R. And during the course of investigation conducted by the police his name has been added. According to the conclusion drawn by the I.O. Muhammad Imran petitioner No,4 by causing firing initiating the whole trouble.
3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has seriously opposed the application tooth and nail on the ground that all the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. Specific role has been attributed to them and this was promptly lodged F.I.R. And they are not entitled for any concession of bail because no mala fide in specific terms has come out.
4. I have heard the parties in detail and perused the record minutely.
5. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have been challenged under section 109, P.P.C. Sharafat Ali, petitioner No,3, caused simple injury and according to the medical evidence, available on the file, the said injury has been declared as "Shaja-e-Khafifa". Muhammad Imran was not initially nominated in the F.I.R. And during the police investigation certain evidence was collected and he has been found guilty of the charge. According to the facts and circumstances of the case explained above. The motive part explained in the F.I.R. Shows that there was some previous scuffle and dispute between the parties and according to A the learned counsel for the petitioners, the registration of the instant case is outcome of the mala fide. Needless to say that the mala fide in the case of pre-arrest bail is simply to be alleged and not to be proved. I have come to the conclusion that the case of all four petitioners is one of the further inquiry as envisaged under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. For what has been stated above, the interim pre-arrest bail, already granted to the petitioners by means of order, dated 18-2-2009, is hereby confirmed.