1. ' FARRUKH ZIA G. SHAIKH, J.--- By this single order I intend to dispose of both the bail applications captioned above.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that applicants present in Court may be granted bail before arrest and he has relied on 1996 SCM R 1845, 2001 PCr.LJ 216, 1973 PCr.LJ 74 and 1996 PCr.LJ 1612. It is contended that in Criminal Bail Application No,S-9 of 2008 interim pre-arrest bail was granted to the applicants and the medical certificate contradicts the F.I.R. Further that bail has never been misused by the applicants and this is a fit case for grant of bail. At this stage it cannot be ascertained as to which party is aggressor and which party has been aggressed. The learned counsel for the applicants has further stated that this itself makes out a case of further inquiry and that in view of 1994 PCr.LJ 1102, the applicants are not hardened or desperate criminals and are not required by the police. Medical evidence is also in consonance with the ocular evidence and only tentative view has to be taken on record.
3. ' On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has relied on 2007 SCM R 1412, 2006 SCM R 933, 2007 SCM R 1607 and 2002 SCM R 1370 and has stated that counter-case was filed after two days and the names of the applicants have specifically been mentioned in the F.I.R. And their roles have been clarified and has itself been confirmed by them in the counter-case i.e. F.I.R. No,87 of 2007 which is ari afterthought. Learned counsel for complainant has also stated that keeping in view 1992 SCM R 501, in a counter-case bail cannot be granted as a right. The attention of the Court has also been drawn to section 149, P.P.C. Which reads as under:--- "If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence."
4. ' Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that section 149, P.P.C. Is relevant because the number of the accused persons is more than five and each and every person as per the F.I.R. Has participated in the crime and reliance is also placed on 1981 SCM R 1092. It is contended that a case is made out and bail cannot be granted, as accused have been specifically nominated in the F.I.R.
5. ' Learned Assistant Advocate-General has submitted that he adopts the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and has further stated that there is no mala fide on the part of the prosecution or the police and that accused persons have filed the second F.I.R. Against the complainant party with mala fide intention.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the complainant along with learned Assistant Advocate-General and in my view Criminal Bail Application No,S-9 of 2008 as well as Criminal Bail Application No,S-47 of 2008 have no merits and therefore, both of these applications are rejected. Interim pre-arrest bail order passed earlier is recalled. Direction is given to the learned trial Court to expedite the proceedings and examine the star-witnesses within a period of 30 days. In the meantime learned counsel for the applicants has suggested that there is a possibility of compromise between the parties, he is at liberty to pursue such compromise which however, is totally denied by learned counsel for the complainant. All the parties are present in Court and complainant has not shown any sign of such compromise.