' MANZOOR AHMED MALIK, J.-- Shahnaz Bibi petitioner seeks cancellation of bail after arrest allowed to respondent No,1 namely Qamar Abbas vide order dated 25-3-2010 and respondent No,2 namely Chan Pir vide order dated 2-4-2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Pindi Bhattian in case F.I.R. No,68/2010 dated 23-1-2010 offences under sections 365, 337-K, 337-L(i) and 336 P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station Pindi Bhattian, District Hafizabad. Allegations against respondents Nos.1 and 2 as per F.I.R. Are that they along with their co-accused abducted the petitioner on gunpoint to get her statement in a murder case of his deceased maternal uncle Nawaz. They confined her and hanged her in a room and caused serious injuries to her.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, contends that both the respondents are nominated in the F.I.R. With a specific role of abduction and causing injuries to the complainant; that the injuries are duly supported by the medical evidence available on the record as the complainant was medically examined on the same day and four injuries were found on her person; that the petitioner was firstly examined at THQ Pindi Bhattian wherefrom she was referred to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad and then she was referred to Lahore and she was medically examined at the Department of Neurology of Mayo Hospital, Lahore; that after receipt of the said report offence under section 336 P.P.C. Was added as her both arms are not in a workable condition; that the learned Court below allowed bail to respondents without considering the material available on the record; that the respondent No, I was allowed bail after arrest just one month and twenty days of his arrest and respondent No,2 was allowed bail after about two months of his arrest and the ing orders are liable to be recalled as the alleged offences fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 opposes this petition on the grounds that motive set out in the F.I.R. Is not plausible as petitioner is neither the complainant nor the eye-witness of the case which was registered for the murder of her maternal uncle namely Nawaz; that no weapon of offence was recovered from the respondents; that the victim was also not recovered from the dera of the respondents; that two co-accused of the respondents namely Arshad and Sharif were declared innocent in this case on the affidavit filed by the petitioner herself; that grounds for the grant of bail and its cancellation are altogether different; that challan has been submitted in the court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 relies upon the case of "Mst. Haliman Bibi v. The State" (2007 PCr.LJ 1367), "Muhammad Ahmad Sheikh Muhammad Aslam and another" (2007 PCr.LJ 1481) and "Aurangzeb v. Shakeel Ahmad and another"
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General strongly supports this petition on the grounds that the respondents are fully involved in this case and were not entitled to the concession of bail as the offence alleged against them does fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure and even they were found guilty during the investigation.
5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. In this case the respondents are nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role of abduction and causing injuries to the victim. The victim was medically examined firstly at THQ Hospital Pindi Bhattian on the same day i,e, 23-1-2010 and four injuries were found on her person. She was ultimately referred to Neurology Department of Mayo Hospital Lahore and after examination by Registrar a report was submitted. Relevant portion of the said report is reproduced below:-- "This electrophysiological study is suggestive of bilateral, brachial Pan Plexopathy of predominanty axonal variety with no evidence re-innervation at present."
' The complainant/victim is even present in person and she is unable to raise her arms All these circumstances which were no only relevant but material for the disposed of bail petitions were not considered by the learned court below while allowing bail to the respondents Nos. I and 2. The bail has been allowed by just mentioning that no specific role is attributed to the respondent whereas in the F.I.R. There are specific allegations against the persons mentioned therein. The offence alleged does fa within the prohibitory clause of section 49 Cr.P.C. The discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge without any valid reason or justification The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 distinguishable on facts as every criminal case has to be decided on its own facts an circumstances. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the ing orders date 25-3-2010 and 2-4-2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Pind Bhattian are recalled. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall be taken into custody.