1. ' SPED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.---Applicants/accused after rejection of their bail before arrest by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-South, approached to this Court. On 28-10-2011 interim pre-arrest bail was granted to both the applicants/accused by this Court.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that Saqib Zeeshan son of Abdul Razzak, resident of House No, BB-127, Defence View Phase-3, Karachi lodged report, it was entered through Roznamcha entry that he is residing on the address, mentioned above, running a shop of games at Mini Market, Defence View, Phase-3. On 2-10-2011 at about 7-30 p.m. While he and one Abdul Wahid were sitting outside the house, Owais and his brother Noman, Farhan and one unknown person came there. Owais was armed with kalashnikov, Noman was armed with pistol and they dragged him and wanted to take him away. When he tried to rescue himself they started firing on him with intention to commit his murder. The complainant received fire arm shot on his left leg and Abdul Wahid also received fire arm shot on his right leg. Thereafter, all the four accused persons fled away from the scene. Both injured were shifted to Jinnah Hospital where treatment, was provided, thereafter, F.I.R. No,263 of 2011 was registered at Police Station Baloch Colony. Both the present applicants/accused and one Farmanullah son of Haji Meer Ali filed joint bail before arrest application bearing No,1036 of 2011 in the Sessions Court, Karachi South. Interim pre-arrest bail was granted to all of them, however, on 25-10-2011 IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South recalled the order, dismissed bail application in respect of both the present applicants and confirmed the bail granted to co- accused Farmanullah and observed that the case of Farmanullah was on different footings as he did not emerge on scene with fire arm weapon and no injury was attributed to him.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicants contends that both the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. He further urged that there wis no intention of the accused to kill the complainant and other witness as neither they caused injuries to the complainant on vital parts of their bodies nor they had repeated firing, the police had added section 324, P.P.C. Just to harass the accused and to create hurdle in getting the concession of bail. It is further argued that the applicants have been involved in the commission of offence -due to political rivalries. He further submits that no empty of the kalashnikov was recovered from the place of incident, which creates doubt about Commission of offence. Learned counsel further submits that complainant and his companions belong to the Bhata Mafia (extortion) and have strong political affiliation. He further contends that the applicants are students, enjoying good reputation in the community and they never got indulged in any sort of evil activities. He further submits that the complainant malafidely and maliciously lodged two other F.I.Rs, against the applicants, which shows the intention of the complainant to humiliate and pressurize the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon. PLD 2009 Lahore 312 (Ali Muhammad v. The State).
4. ' Mr. Naseer Shah learned counsel for the complainant contends that as a result of firing of the applicants/accused one. Abdul Wahid, sustained injuries on his right leg and according to the final Medico Legal Report dated 26-11-2011 "right common perinal nerve is damaged resulted to permanent gait abnormality", therefore, the Abdul Wahid has become permanent disable.
5. ' Learned counsel submits that not only the name of the applicants/accused was mentioned in the F.I.R. But specific role of firing upon the complainant and Abdul Wahid with lethal weapon have been assigned. He further contends that after firing on the complainant and others the applicants fled away from the spot, thereafter, obtained interim pre-arrest bail and the kalashnikov and pistol are yet to be recovered from which they caused injuries. According to learned counsel for the complainant there is sufficient ocular evidence against the applicants, which corroborate with the medical evidence and no single instance has been placed on record or argued that the applicants/accused have been involved falsely. Applicants/accused have caused fire arm injuries to the legs of two persons and granting of bail to the applicants/accused would amount to disallow the police from interrogating the accused persons and would stifle the investigation.
6. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:--
(1) PLD 1983 Supreme Court 82 (Murad Khan v. Fazal-e-Subha and another)
(2) 2003 YLR 2131 (Jumman alias Jummoo v. The State).
(3) 1981 SCMR 1139 (Ali Muhammad v. Yamin and another)
(4) 2007 PCr.LJ 544 (Muhammad Anwar Butt and others v. The State).
(5) KLR 2009 Criminal Cases 44 (Aslam v. The State).
(6) PLD 2007 Karachi 336 (Amjad Javed v. The State).
(7) 2004 YLR 1835 (Muhammad Khalid v. The State).
(8) 2004 PCr.LJ 722 (Aftab v. The State).
(9) 2005 YLR 1239 (Muhammad Ali v. The State).
(10) 1998 PCr.LJ 1438 (Katbar and another v. The State).
(11) 1982 SCMR 384 (Muhammad Shafiq and another v. The State).
7. ' Mr. Abdullah Rajput learned A.P.-G. Has adopted the arguments advance by the learned counsel for the complainant and vehemently opposed the confirmation of the bail of the applicant.
8. ' From the material available before this court it is apparent that the applicants had fired upon the complainant and one Abdul Wahid with kalashnikov and pistol, who sustained injuries on their legs and according to final medical report injured Abdul Wahid has become permanent disable due to said injuries for whole of his life. Accused persons have been nominated with specific roles and there is corroboration between the ocular evidence and medical evidence and police had no mala fide or ulterior motives against the accused persons to falsely implicated them in the present case.
9. Bail before arrest was an extraordinary remedy and it would not be allowed just in routine. Bail before arrest would effect and divert normal course of law. Considerations laid down for bail before arrest were quite different from those for bail after arrest. Bail before arrest could only be allowed in extraordinary circumstances because basic purpose and object of it was to avoid humiliation of a respectable and dignified citizen. Courts must refrain, from exercising such extraordinary powers just in routine. In PLD 2009 SC 427 (Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another) the honourable Supreme Court has summarized the principles and guidelines for grant of bail before arrest, according to which bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief to be granted in extraordinary situation.
10. ' For the foregoing reasons, the order granting interim pre-arrest bail to the applicants dated 28- 10-2011 was recalled and Bail before arrest application was dismissed by short order dated 7-12- 2011.