1. ' NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.---Applicants/accused seek pre arrest bail in Crime No,101 of 2012 registered at B-Section Kandhkot under sections 337-A(i), F(i), 147, 148, 114, 504, 506/2 P.P.C.
2. ' Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Are that on 18-8-2012 at 12-00 noon accused Pahalwan,
2. Manik boths sons of Mohammad Ismail alias Thikar 3.Adam,
4. Zulfiqar Ali, 5.Ali Nawaz all three sons of Pahalwan all by caste Bajkani, 6.Aijaz, 7.Papu, 8.Sadam Hussain all three sons of Shahmir Gujrani RIO Dabhani, all armed with lathies came at Mai Masjid road where his uncle Sabir Hussain, cousin Abdullah and Habibullah were standing.-At that time it is alleged that accused Pahalwan instigated the co-accused and at his instigation accused Manik caused lathi blow to complainant which hit him at right side of his head, accused Adam caused lathi blow to complainant which hit him at his back, accused Aijaz. Gujrani caused lathi blow to Sabir Hussain which hit him at the left side of his head, accused Papu and Zulfiqar caused lathi blows to Sabir Hussain, accused Sadam Hussain caused lathi blow to Habibullah which hit him on left eyebrow, accused Ali Nawaz and Sadam Hussain caused lathi blows to Habibullah, accused Pahalwan caused lathi blows to Abdullah which hit him on the left side of his nose. Complainant party raised cries which attracted to the persons of the locality and accused persons went away while abusing to complainant party but the complainant party succeeded to apprehend accused Pahalwan on the spot along with lathi. Thereafter, complainant took injured persons to the police station and complainant lodged report against the accused persons to the above effect. It was recorded under the above referred sections. Police after usual investigation submitted challan against accused under section 512, Cr.P.C. Applicants/ accused applied for pre arrest bail before learned Sessions Judge, Kashmore at Kandhkot. Bail application moved on behalf of the applicants/accused was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot vide order dated 2-10-2012, thereafter, applicants/ accused approached this Court.
3. ' Mr. Mohammad Azeem Korai, learned advocate for the applicants/accused mainly contended that there is dispute between the parties. Applicants are brothers inter se and they have been falsely implicated by the complainant due to enmity. He has further contended that present applicants/accused are students, in case they are remanded to jail, their career will be ruined. He further submitted that alleged offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. Applicants are no more required for investigation, challan has already been submitted. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants/accused relied upon case of Adrees Ahmad and others v. Zafar Ali and another (2010 SCM R 64).
5. ' Miss Shazia Surahio, State Counsel vehemently opposed the grant of bail mainly on the ground that the applicants/accused had caused injuries to complainant party and they have been specifically named in the F.I.R. Applicants/accused were absconders in challan.
6. I am inclined to confirm interim pre arrest bail already granted to the applicants/accused for the reasons that all applicants/accused are brothers inter se. It has been argued that all applicants/accused are students, in case they are remanded to jail, their study will suffer. A Humiliation and unjustified harassm ent would be caused to applicants/ accused. Alleged offences do not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In such cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. Enmity is admitted in F.I.R. Case has already been B challaned and no useful purpose will be served by remanding applicants/accused to jail on technical grounds. A large number of accused persons have been involved in this case. Prima facie, a false implication of applicants/ accused cannot be ruled out in this case. Mala fide is apparent on record. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to peculiar circumstances of case. Abscondence of applicants/accused was for a short period, mere abscondence for a short period would not be sufficient to disentitle applicants/accused from concession of bail because even otherwise applicants are entitled for bail.
7. ' Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, ingredients of pre arrest bail are satisfied therefore, interim pre arrest bail already granted to the applicants/accused is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
8. ' Needless to observe that above observations are tentative in nature and will not influence the trial Court in any manner while deciding the case.