' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--- F.I.R. No.58 of 2011, was recorded at Police Station Dil Murad on 31-12- 2011. The complainant stated that a day prior to the incident applicant restrained Rehmatullah from ploughing the lands and on the day of the incident a group of eleven persons, all the present applicants came to the house of the complainant and then it is alleged in the F.I.R. That applicant No.1 in Criminal Bail Application No.17 of 2012, fired, upon Mehran Khoso and applicant No.2 of the same bail application fired upon Hari Muhammad Qasim thereby injuring them and it is stated that one was injured in right leg and other was Injured in the left leg.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that except Rehmatullah and Naseebullah allegations against other accused are of ineffective aerial firing and therefore in any case they are entitled for bail. As far as applicants Rehmatullah and Naseebullah are concerned, he submitted that injuries alleged to have been caused to them have been caused on non-vital parts of the their bodies and have been classified as Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Mutalahimah, which is punishable with three years imprisonment and therefore, do not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Mr. Rasool Bux Soomro, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that applicant Rehmatullah and Naseebullah have been alle d specific role of causing injuries. He former submitted that rest of the accused resorted to aerial firing. Learned counsel in respect of Criminal Bail Application No.17 of 2012, submitted that this is pre-arrest bail application and no mala fides on the part of the police have been alleged and therefore, they are not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
Learned counsel relied upon Ch. Waris Ali v. The State (2007 SCM R 1607), Riaz Ahmed v. The State (2009 SCM R, 725), and Muhammad Waqas v. The State (2002 SCM R 1370).
4. Learned State counsel submitted that since both the injured have been injured on non-vital parts of their bodies, he does not oppose these bail applications.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record. Contention of the learned counsel that there is no mala fide alleged against the police and therefore, pre-arrest bail should not be allowed does carry some weight. However, the mala fide on the part of the police is not the only reason for grant of pre-arrest bail. In all the four cases cited by him, after making such observations the Courts have considered merits of the bail applications and have been rejected the bail applications. I have not been able to find any case where the court has said that though the individual is entitled to bail on merits but since it is pre- arrest bail application, therefore, it must be rejected. Only case, where comes close to this, is Murad Khan v. Fazal Subhan (PLD 1983 SC 82), Murad Khan's case (supra) was considered by a four members Bench of Supreme Court in Meeran Bux v. The State and another (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 347). In this case Sessions Court had granted bail and the High Court had rejected pre-arrest bail only on the ground that there were, no mala fides on the part of police and the High Court had not considered merits. The Supreme Court firstly observed that matter deserved to be remanded to the High Court for considering the bail application on merits and then it observed that since injury was caused on non-vital part of the body of deceased i.e. Thigh and was simple, order of the Sessions Judge by which bail was granted was not without foundation and the Supreme Court set aside order of the High Court and restored order of the Sessions Judge. In presence of clear dicta of the Supreme Court in Meeran Bux; which I have stated above, is a judgment by a four members Bench of the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that in a pre-arrest bail application merits should not be considered. Application No.45 of 2012, are ordered to be admitted to bail upon their executing P.R. Bonds for a sum of Rs.100,000 (One hundred thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. As far ' as applicants except Naseebullah and Rehmatulah are concerned, allegations against them are of aerial firing. As far as Naseebullah and Rehmatullah are concerned, the medical certificate indicates that injured Qasim received one wound of entry on his left knee region and there was corresponding wound of exit and in case of Mehran Khoso the injured received one injury being wound of entry at right knee region. Both the injuries were on non-vital parts of the body.
Therefore, in light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Meeran Bux, their case for bail is made out.
7. Result of the above discussion is that Criminal Bail Application No.17 of 2012, is allowed and the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants vide order dated 13-1-2012, is confirmed on the same terms. The applicants in Criminal Bail.