1. ORDER MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---The applicants were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail per order dated 8-6-2010 subject to their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar of this Court.
2. Today learned counsel for the applicant has once again maintained his arguments in support of his bail application by contending that allegations are general in nature in the F.I.R. He says that offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. He also placed on record the order dated 2-9- 2010 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.S-615 of 2010, whereby other two co-accused were admitted to bail in the same Crime number. He says that rule of consistency be followed and bail earlier granted to present applicants be confirmed. He says that there is cross F.I.Rs. By the parties against each other and it is a case of counter version, hence the same requires further enquiry.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently oppose the grant of bail and has submitted that after grant of bail the applicants have misused the bail. When he was called upon to point these instances, he stated that first complaint was made by the complainant on 24-5-2010 to D.P.O. Concerned and another complaint was made on 8-6-2010. He further says that as many as seven persons have been injured in this case, out of which six are men and one is woman. He says that interim bail earlier granted to the present applicants be re-called. In support of his contention he has relied upon the cases of Khalil Ahmed and others v. The State (2007 YLR 2688) and Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others (2002 SCM R 442).
4. Learned A.P.-G. Has also opposed the confirmation of bail and has supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant. He further added that rule of consistency may not be followed in this case on the ground that two other co-accused who were admitted to bail on 2-9-2010, their bail was post arrest. Whereas in the case in hand applicants are seeking pre-arrest bail, he elaborated his argument by saying that parameters for grant of post arrest bail and pre- arrest bail are entirely different.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record, so also the case-law cited at bar.
6. From the examination of the record it appears that allegations in the F.I.R. Are general in nature and no specific role has been assigned to any of the applicant. No instance has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant or the learned A.P.-G. That after grant of bail the applicants have misused the bail. Since other co-accused have already been granted bail on the ground that allegations are general in nature, present applicants are also entitled to the same treatment as their case are similarly placed. Since it is a case of counter version and it is yet to be seen that which of the accused has caused injury to the injured. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the complainant are distinguishable on facts and do not apply to the case in hand.
7. In the circumstances I confirm the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants on 8-6-2010 on the same terms and conditions.
8. Criminal Bail Application stands disposed of.