' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,489, dated 27-12- 2009, under sections 324/ 148/149 P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Mian Channu, District Khanewal.
2. Allegedly, the petitioner while armed with chopper along with is co-accused who were armed with fire-arms and hatchet, made an tack on Abid Hussain nephew of the complainant. Allegedly, Abdul hafoor co-accused of the petitioner made a fire which hit Abid Hussain n his head; second fire was made by Ghulam Abbas which hit Abid Hussain on his left hand, who fell down on the ground; Manzoor Hussain gave a blow from wrong side of the hatchet which hit on the back of the victim and petitioner gave a blow from wrong side of chopper, which hit the victim on his back.
Thereafter, Daro and Ubaidah co-accused of the petitioner gave blows with wrong side of their hatchet and stick to Mst. Bashiran Bibi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner has been roped in the false case with malice along with his father, mother, sister and other close relatives; that MLR does not show that the victim had received any injury on his back as is alleged in the F.I.R.; that both the P.Ws. Irfan and Habibullah in their statements undSection 161, Cr.P.C. Have not attributed any injury to the petitioner an as such the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. In support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 201 YLR 72 (Lahore).
4. Learned D.P.-G. And learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the petition.
It is contended that after dismissal of bail petition from Sessions Court, the petitioner wilfully absconded and remained fugitive from law; that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R.
So he is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon 2000 M LD 1718.
5. The MLR does not show that the victim had sustained any injury on his back as is alleged by the prosecution. Moreover, all injuries sustained by him were caused with fire-arm. The P.Ws. Irfan and Habibullah have not specifically stated that the petitioner caused any injury to the victim. The MLR coupled with stater, of these P.Ws. Clearly shows that the victim had not sustained injury at the hands of the petitioner. His involvement in the case therefore doubtful and in these circumstances benefit of doubt is to extended in favour of the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner ha remained fugitive from law but absconsion alone in the given I circumstances of the case, when no injury was attributed to the petitioner by the P.Ws. And the injury allegedly caused by the petitioner is not found at the time of medical examination is not sufficient to withhold the concession of bail.
Usually, an absconder disentitles himself from the concession of pre-arrest bail but when it is established that his involvement is highly doubtful as in the present case then the Courts are always vested with the powers to give relief under section 497/498. Cr . P. C .
6. For the reasons supra, the petition is accepted and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirme subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.