CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioners Abid Hussain, Saqib-ul-Hassan and Umer Farooq Hayat alias Umer Shehzad through the instant petition have prayed for pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.30 registered under sections 337-F(i)/L(2)/354/379/148/149, P.P.C. With Police Station Sadar Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad on 21-1-2011. Later on the police is stated to have added the offence under section 452, P.P.C. In the same.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that on 18-1-2011 at 8-00 a.m. The complainant was present in his house along with his family members. All of a sudden, these accused along with others entered there and Umer Shehzad caught his mother from her hair and dragged her to the ground and as a result whereof, her clothes were torn and she became naked and injured. The rest of the accused gave him (complainant) as well as his wife fist blows and kicks. On their alarm, the witnesses were attracted to the spot and they beseeched them and rescued them. Saqib Hussain has also committed the theft of Gold ear ring of his mother.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have falsely been roped in with mala tide intention on account of dispute over the drain outside the house of the parties; that they at the relevant time were not present at the spot and have not committed the alleged offence; that they in fact were present in their school at the relevant time and this fact has so been verified by the Headmaster of the Government High School, Chak No. 400-GB, Faisalabad and they rely upon his such certificate annexed to the petition; that Abid Hussain is aged about 12 years and student of 6th class, whereas Umer Shehzad is 16 years old and student of 9th class and Saqib Hussain is of 18 years of age and student of 9th class and so, they are very young boys; and that they have joined the investigation and nothing is to be recovered from them.
4. On the other hand, the learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the instant petition. However, the learned DPG has confirmed that the petitioners have joined the investigation.
5. The Investigating Officer has stated that as per his investigation, they were not present at the spot at the relevant time and that the Gold ear-ring of the mother of the complainant -fell on the ground and missed somewhere in the rush and the petitioner have not taken away the same.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the record.
7. The perusal of the F.I.R. Shows that there is the above allegation against the petitioners. They but have pleaded that they were not present at the spot at the relevant time and rather were in their school. In this regard, they have relied upon the certificate issued by Muhammad Riaz Khan, Headmaster Government High School Chak No.400-GB, Faisalabad. The said Headmaster as per the Investigating Officer has certified that these boys/students were present in the said school on 18-1-2011 from 8-00 a.m. To 2-30 p.m. The time of occurrence, as obvious from the above position, is 8-00 a.m. The Investigating Officer has also informed that the distance between the place of occurrence and the said school is 1-1/2 km and similar is of their house from the same. He has also stated that he has verified the contents of the above- mentioned certificate of the headmaster and has also recorded his statement in this behalf.
8. The learned DPG has read the statement of the Headmaster. He in the same has reiterated his stance as in the certificate. The Headmaster of the school is a responsible officer and he must have issued the certificate according to the record. According to the learned DPG, the Headmaster has stated in his statement that he has verified the presence of these students in the school on the relevant date and time from their class teacher.
9. In such circumstances, the plea of the petitioners' side has been supported by the headmaster of their school. The Investigating Officer has stated that as per his investigation, none of them has.
Taken away the Gold ear-ring of the mother of the complainant. Hence, I- find that there is scope of further inquiry into their guilt and so, their case is covered under subsection (2) of section 97, Cr.P.C.
10. They are present in this Court. Two of them are very young boys, whereas the 3rd one is of similar age but little bit elder and taller than them. They are stated to be the students of 6th and 9th class respectively. Their young age and being students is also a circumstance in their favour in the instant matter.
11. They admittedly have joined the investigation and in such circumstances, nothing is to be recovered from them.
12. I, thus, have been persuaded to hold that they have succeeded to make out a case for pre- arrest bail.
13. The petition, therefore, is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. They, however, are directed to join the investigation again, if and when may be so, required.