1. ' BIN YAMIN, J.---The order will dispose of bail before arrest application made on behalf of the applicant/accused Mrs. Firdous Saud and four others, who apprehend their arrest in case F.I.R.
2. No,36/ 2008, registered under section 337-A/427/ 337-F(vi), P.P.C. At P.S. Shah Faisal Colony, Karachi.
3. ' Brief facts of the case are that on 1-2-2008 complainant namely Dawood Ahmed appeared at aforesaid Police Station, along with his wife Samina and daughter Sara Dawood and lodged the report which was recorded in Roznamcha of Police Station. In his report, complainant stated that their relative Mst. Shafiq Begum had expired at Al-Falah Society, Block-3, SFC. That his wife and daughter went to the house of above said deceased to offer their condolences. He further stated that at about 8-30 p.m., his nephew Ali Ahmed and sister in law exchanged hot words with his wife and daughter. That all of sudden, they became harsh and started beating his wife and daughter and in the meantime other accused also came there and they also caused injuries to his wife and daughter. The wife and daughter of the complainant were saved by the intervention of the Mohallah people. That in the incident, mobile phone of his wife Nokia 1100 was also lost. That on return, the wife and daughter of the complainant informed him about the incident, on which he went at the Police Station to lodge report which was recorded in the daily diary as stated earlier.
4. Thereafter, on receipt of medical certificate, F.I.R., against the applicants/ accused was registered at P.S. On 18-2-2008. Earlier bail before arrest application made on behalf of the applicants/accused before the Sessions Court was finally disposed of by Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Karachi East, who dismissed the same for non-prosecution. Hence this application.
5. ' Heard advocate for applicants/ accused and learned Addl. Prosecutor General for State and perused case papers.
6. ' Learned counsel for applicants/ accused submitted that the applicants/ accused are innocent and are falsely implicated in this, case due to the strain relation in between the parties who are near relative with each other. In this regard, he submitted that he has produced photocopy of the plaint filed by complainant against the husband of applicant No,1 bearing Suit No,685/2006. That the said suit has been filed for recovery of Rs,60,00.000. That to cause them harassment and to pressurize "them the complainant has filed this false case against the applicants/accused. That as per the earlier report, the report was recorded at P.S. On 1-2-2008 but perusal of the medical- certificate shows that alleged injured appeared before the medical-Officer; on 2-2-2008 at 5-50 p.m. That this delay cause doubt about the correctness of the medical certificate issued in this matter. He further submitted that the provisional medical certificate was issued on the same date but the final medical certificate was issued after long delay i.e, on 14-2-2008. That even after receipt of medical certificate, the F.I.R. Was not registered against the applicants/accused on 14-2- 2008 but it was registered against them on 18-2-2008. This all indicate that before the registering the F.I.R., meditation and consultation had taken place by the complainant. This also casts doubts on the genuineness of the F.I.R. That the applicants/accused can approach to this court for grant of relief of bail before arrest and if the court entertains their application and grant them interim bail before arrest then their application cannot be rejected on technical grounds. In this regard, he referred the case of Rais Wazir Ahmed v. The State (2004 SCMR 1167), in which it was laid down as under:- "It is true that normally a person, against whom a case has been registered, at the first instance, may approach the original court having jurisdiction i.e, Sessions Judge in the matter of bail before arrest because propriety so demands but it is not a absolute rule as depending upon the compelling circumstances of each case, a person can approach directly to the High Court by Invoking its concurrent jurisdiction. Reference may be made to Sh. Zahoor Ahmed v. The State PLD 1974 Lah. 256, The State v. Malik Mukhtar Ahmed Awan 1991 SCMR 322, Rafiq Ahmed Jilani v. The State 1993 ' PCr.LJ 785, Agha Muhammad Jamil v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 901 and Shamrez Khan v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 74. Besides it if such an application has been moved before the High Court and it has entertained and granted ad interim bail to the applicant then instead of dismissing it on technical grounds it should have disposed it of on merits."
7. ' He further contended that as there is previous record of litigation in between the parties and there is also delay in lodging ' of the F.I.R., therefore, the possibility that the applicants/accused have falsely been implicated in this case to pressurize them to settle the civil dispute with the complainant party, cannot be overruled. He, therefore, requested for confirmation of the interim bail before arrest, earlier granted to the applicant/accused.
8. ' Learned Addl. Prosecutor General has opposed this bail before arrest application and submitted that after dismissal of their bail before arrest application by learned Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Karachi East, they were required to have moved fresh bail before arrest application before the Sessions Judge, Karachi East, and they could not approach this Court. However, he has not disputed the principle laid down in the decided case. He secondly submitted that the matter was reported to the police on the very day when the incident took place and the delay in filing the case took place because of observance of various formalities; the same has properly been explained.
9. That the allegation of the complainant also finds support from the medical certificate issued by the Doctor to show that applicants/ accused actually participated in the commission of the alleged incident. That no case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants/accused has been made out.
10. Therefore, he requested for rejection of the instant pre-arrest bail application.
11. ' I have considered the contentions raised at bar and have also gone through the material available on the record.
12. The delay in appearance of the alleged injured before the medical officer finds support from the contents of the medical certificate issued on 2-2-2008. Furthermore, it is available on the record that the final medical certificate in this case was issued on 14-2-2008 but the F.I.R., against the applicants/accused was registered on 18-2-2008 with the delay of four days, which requires proper explanation at the time of trial. Furthermore, civil litigation before filing of this case was going on in between the parties, therefore, it gives support to the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants/accused that they are being involved in this case to pressurize them.
13. ' In the light of above-noted discussion, and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that a case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants/accused has been made out. I, therefore, confirm the interim bail before arrest earlier granted to the applicants/accused and allow them to remain on same surety which they had furnished at the time of grant of interim bail before arrest.
14. ' Bail application stands disposed of.