Nazeer Ahmad and Muhammad Tayyab, petitioners, through this petition, seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 370 dated 09.11.2008, offence under Sections 337-F(V)/337-F(VI)/337-I(II)/337-A(i)/34 PPC registered at Police Station, Sahuka, Tehsil Burewala District Vehari.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as per FIR is that the accused Nazeer Ahmad armed with iron rod, Tariq armed with Sariya and Tayyab armed with sota came on the spot. Nazeer petitioner gave blow with iron rod on the head of the complainant, whereas Tariq gave a blow on the left blow, than Tayyab gave sota blow on left arm of the complainant. The accused Nazeer gave a blow on the head of left thigh of the complainant.
3.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I find that in the present case a cross version was recorded on the statement of Muhammad Tariq son of Petitioner No, 1 and brother of Petitioner No, 2 vide Report No, 7 dated 05.01.2009 and in that cross version Muhammad Saeed has been challaned under Sections 452/337-A(i) PPC and during the investigation it was concluded by the Investigating Officer that in fact the complainant party of F.I.R. firstly entered in the house of the petitioners, attacked upon them and than took them at the street in the front of their house. All these facts would show that in fact the complainant party of FIR was the mischief monger and the occurrence was the result of re-action when complainant party of FIR illegally and unlawfully trespassed into the house of the petitioners. Even otherwise, the injuries attributed to Petitioner No, 1 falls within the purview of bailable offence, whereas, case of Petitioner No, 2 does not fall within the prohibition contained under sub section (1) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. It has not been denied by the learned DPG, on perusal of the police record that the petitioners have been joining the investigation, so prima facie nothing is to be recovered and if recovery is to be effected that bail granting order cannot be a bar in the way of the Investigating Officer. Case law i.e 2005 P.Cr.L.J 1768, relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant is not applicable in the present case, as in this case the complainant party entered in the house of the petitioners.
4. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioners pre-arrest bail granted earlier vide order dated 25.02.2009 is hereby confirmed provided they furnish fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.