MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, J.---The petitioners namely Altaf Hussain, Muhammad Ishaq alias Ballu and Ghulam Abbas seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 252/2014 dated 13-4-2014, registered under sections 324/34 of P.P.C. At Police Station Basti Malook, District Multan.
2. The facts are that Mumtaz Ahmad had reported the matter to the Police, with the contention that during night between 12/13-4-2014 at about 12.30 AM, when he along with Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Tassawar PWs was going to check the crop, suddenly, Messrs Ghulam Abbas (petitioner No, 3) while armed with a repeater .12 bore, Altaf Hussain and Muhammad Ishaq alias Ballu (petitioners Nos. 1 and 2) emerged; that Altaf Hussain (petitioner No, 1) raised a 'Lalkara' that the complainant will be taught a taste of teasing women folk, whereupon Altaf Hussain and Ballu (petitioners Nos. 1 and 2) caught hold of the complainant from his collar and started beating him; that Ghulam Abbas (petitioner No 3) with 12 bore repeater made direct fire at the complainant, which hit at his left knee and he became injured; that Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Tassawar P.Ws. Tried to apprehend the accused, but Ghulam Abbas (petitioner No, 3) threatened that whosoever will come near, will also be dealt with in the same manner and that after commission of the occurrence, the above named assailants fled away.
3. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Additional Prosecutor General have been heard and the record has been perused.
4. Admittedly, Altaf Hussain and Muhammad Ishaq alias Ballu (petitioners Nos. 1 and 2) were empty handed. The allegations against them are that they had caught hold of the complainant and beaten him, but during medical examination, no such injury at the person of the complainant could be found.
5. The prosecution story is that Ghulam Abbas (petitioner No, 3) by firing with 12 bore repeater has caused injury at left knee of the complainant, but during medical examination, no firearm injury to the A complainant has been found, rather an incised wound at the back of left leg of the complaint was observed being caused with sharp edged weapon.
6. In the above stated situation, the contention of the prosecution regarding firearm injury to the complainant, by Ghulam Abbas (petitioner No, 3) could not be confirmed.
7. It has been observed that to re-examine the above mentioned injury of the complainant, a standing Medical Board was constituted, which had again examined the complainant, but the above mentioned findings made during first examination that the injury at the complainant was inside in nature and caused by a sharp edged weapon, was confirmed.
8. The above mentioned contradictions in the alleged prosecution story and the medical evidence has not only shaken whole of the prosecution version, but also made the case against the petitioners as of further inquiry.
9. It has been held by the superior courts in a number of judgments that even pre-arrest bail can be granted to an accused if his case is found to be of further inquiry, because no useful purpose will be served in sending him behind the bars just for a few days. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the cases reported as "Farhat Husain Shah and another v. The State and others" (2010 SCM R 1986), "Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Shah v. Hafiz Muhammad Ramzan and others" (2007 SCM R 1931) and "Kh. Masood-ul-Hassan v. The State and another" (2013 PCr.LJ 1420).
10. For what has been discussed above, the petition in hand is accepted and the ad interim pre- arrest bail already granted to the above named petitioners is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) each, with one surety each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.