1. 'AMIR"HANI MUSLIM, J.-I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants, who claims that the countercases have been filed between the parties and the punishment is not beyond five years therefore, the applicants are entitled to bail before arrest.
2. 'The medical certificate is on record. The injured, according to the complainant, has lost his mental balance. It is claimed that continuous threats are being extended by the applicants to the complainant and if they are at large they might kill the complainant's son. This fact was taken note of by this Court on 9-9-2009. The complainant again present states that she apprehends danger at the hands of the applicants and opposes the bail.
3. The Court in granting bail before arrest has to see that the concession extended to the applicants has not been abused. In these proceedings the complainant is appearing on each and every date of hearing to oppose the bail and states that she has been attacked and she might loose the life of her sons. Where apprehension is of such nature and on merits, the medical certificate shows corroboration with ocular material, the false implication in such circumstances ought to be brushed aside by the Court. The yardstick for grant of bail before arrest is distinct than the yardstick for grant of bail after arrest. Even in cases where punishment is three years the Courts have refused bail. I, in the given circumstances, am of the considered view that the case for bail before arrest has not been made out by the applicants and accordingly the bail before arrest is not confirmed. The order dated 9-7-2009 granting interim bail before arrest is recalled and surety bonds are cancelled.