ORDER IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. The petitioner-complainant has sought cancellation of post-arrest to the respondent vide order, dated 24-3-2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot in case F.I.R. No.626 registered at Police Station Hajipura, Silakot on 2-11-2009 in respect of offences under sections 324/337- F(i)/336/34, P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent is duly nominated in the F.I.R.
And specific role of causing fire-arm injury on the left eye of the father of the petitioner/complainant is attributed to him due to which the left eye of the victim has permanently left its functioning. The offence under section 336, P.P.C. Falls within the prohibitory, clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court has allowed bail to the respondent purely on the basis of police opinion which is not binding upon the courts of law and the same is inadmissible in evidence. The case of the respondent is distinguishable from his co- accused namely Amir who has been allowed bail because he was guilty of section 337-F(i), PPC only. The prosecution witnesses are still stand by their statements made before the police fully implicating the respondent with the commission of alleged offence. After his release on bail the respondent has continuously been issuing threats to the petitioner and the prosecution witnesses.
Thus, the to the respondent by the learned trial Court may kindly be cancelled. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent contends that during the course of investigation the police has come to the conclusion that the main injury has been caused by Amir accused and not by the present respondent. Abdul Rasheed and Qaiser were merely present at the scene of the crime.
Challan in this case has already been submitted and generally the courts are slow in canceling bail after submission of challan. Despite lapse of six months. The complainant and the prosecution witnesses are not attending the court so as to adduce their evidence. A Medical Board has been constituted for the examination of Muhammad Rafique victim but he did not opt to appear before it.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents appended with this petition it has been noticed by me that the respondent has been nominated in the F.I.R.
And a specific injury of firearm on the left eye of Muhammad Rafique injured has been attributed to him therein. The injured victim was medically examined by a Medical Officer of Government Sardar Begum Hospital, Sialkot and injury was located at the given organ which prima facie connect the respondent with the commission of alleged offence. According to the medical report the left eye of the injured victim has become permanently disorder. Section 336, P.P.C. Attracts in this case which falls within the prohibitory clause. The statement of Muhammad Rafique injured victim under section 161, Cr.P.C. Is available on the record wherein he has specifically incriminated the respondent with the commission of alleged offence.
4. A bare perusal of the order dated 24-3-2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot reveals that the respondent has been allowed post-arrest bail merely on .The basis of police findings as, after coming to the conclusion, the investigating officer has recorded case diary No. 19, dated 15-12-2009 wherein he has mentioned that the respondent and his co-accused namely Abdul Rasheed were present at the place of occurrence empty handed and they did not make any overt act. It is worth mentioning here that ipsi dixit of police is not binding on the courts. Even the presence of the respondent at the spot at the relevant time is not denied. Neither anything has been mentioned in the impugned order in support of the police finding so as to substantiate the stance taken by the Investigating Officer after conducting the investigation in this case nor any substance has been brought before this Court in this regard so as to give weight to the police findings especially in the circumstances when Muhammad Rafique injured victim and the other prosecution witnesses are still stand by their statements made before the police under section 161,1B Cr.P.C.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that Muhammad Rafique and Mst. Haneefan Bibi injured victims are intentionally avoiding for appearing before the District A Standing Medical Board so as to conceal the factual position. I, however, remained unable to subscribe to this submission because the apex court of the country has held that nobody can be forced to appear before the Medical Board for his medical examination. Even otherwise the medical report with regard to the injuries sustained by the victim is available on the record and the injures alleged in the F.I.R. Are borne out from the said report which prima facie connects the respondent with the commission of offences mentioned against the respondent in the F.I.R.
6. For the reasons mentioned above this petition is accepted, the order dated 24-3-2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot is set aside and the post-arrest to the respondent is hereby recalled. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.