The petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in cross version got recorded by Abdul Ghafoor under Sections 337-A (iii)/337-A (ii)/337-F (i)/337-L (ii)/148/149 PPC. Originally FIR No, 72/2011 was lodged on 5.4.2011 under Sections 337-F (v)/337-A (i)/148/149 PPC at Police Station Chhab Kalan, Tehsil Mianchannu by Muhammad Ashiq, Petitioner No,
2. The said FIR was lodged against Abdul Ghafoor, Abdul Ghaffar Muhammad Saleem, Irshad, Amjad, Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Din etc. The story of the Petitioner No, 2 as contained in the FIR was that on the day of occurrence he along with his brothers, namely, Atif Irshad and Ghulam Abbas were seeing a cricket match at a hotel of Irshad when the accused Saleem gave a 'Sota' blow to Atif Irshad hitting him on his head. Abdul Ghafoor also caused injuries to him. Ghulam Abbas was also injured.
2. Later on, Abdul Ghafoor, accused of the FIR got recorded his cross version regarding the said occurrence against the petitioners and four others. The petitioner, Ghulam Abbas and co-accused i,e, Subah Sadiq were allegedly armed with `Tokas', Muhammad Ashiq, petitioner armed with wheel rod and Waris Ali, Atif and Amin armed with `Sotas1 reached the place of occurrence i,e, hotel of Irshad. Subah Sadiq gave a Toka' blow at the head of Abdul Shakoor whereas the petitioner Muhammad Ashiq is attributed an injury on the right cheek of Abdul Shakoor inflicted with wheel rod whereas Ghulam Abbas, petitioner attributed an injury on the right shoulder of Abdul Raheem.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the police in league with the complainant of the FIR involved the petitioners in this case falsely with ulterior motive and declared all the accused of the FIR as innocent as a relative of Abdul Ghafoor the complainant of the cross version was posted as Naib Moharir in the same Police Station. The learned counsel maintained that it is yet to be determined as to who is the aggressor. He also pointed out contradiction in ocular account and the medical evidence. The learned counsel maintained that the petitioners are entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail. In support of his arguments he has referred to 2010 SCR 1219 (Supreme Court) (Hamza Ali Hamza and others versus The State) and PLD 2009 Supreme Court 58 (Muhammad Shahzud Siddique versus The State and another) and maintained that being a case of cross version it is a case of further inquiry, so the petitioners are entitled to confirmation of bail.
4. The learned DPP assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the petition and argued that during the investigation the accused persons nominated in the FIR by the Petitioner No, 2 were found innocent whereas the petitioners were found to be the aggressors and involved in the commission of offence. The recovery was yet to be effected, so they are not entitled to extra-ordinary concession of bail.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides and have scanned the record.
6. The petitioners are nominated in the cross version. The recovery is yet to be effected. The facts and circumstances of the case law referred to above are quite distinguishable from those of the present case. In the instant case during the investigation the petitioners were found to be connected with the commission of offence and the recovery of weapons of offence is yet to be effected. The petitioners have not been able to establish any ulterior motive of the police or the complainant of the cross version. As regards the appreciation of evidence, it is an established principle of law that at the stage of pre-arrest bail no deeper appreciation of evidence is required.
The cross version was found to be correct whereas the version of the Petitioner No, 2 in FIR was not established during the investigation. In these circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to the extra ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. Therefore, the petitioner is hereby dismissed.