' The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case FIR No, 428 dated 18.9.2013 registered under Sections 337-F(v), 337-L(ii), 337-F(i), 452, 148 and 149, PPC at P.S. Jhanian, Khanewal.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioners trespassed into the house of the complainant. They were armed with hockey sticks and firearms. They dragged out Khalid and fell upon him. Muhammad Akmal accused is alleged to have given a hockey blow, which landed on the head of Khalid, while Muhammad Afzal is alleged to have accused inflicted an injury on Khalid with his hockey, which hit him on his left ankle. As for Muhammad Hussain, Liaqat, Iqbal and Ajmal, accused/petitioners, they are alleged to be armed with firearms, who indulged in aerial firing, without causing any injury to anybody. As regards Muhammad Saeed, the petitioner, he is alleged to be armed with a Sota, who gave a Sota blow to Khalid, which hit him on his right ankle. Naveed accused/petitioner is alleged to have hurled a brick on Khalid causing him an injury on his left shoulder.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that four of the petitioners, Muhammad Hussain, Liaqat Ali, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ajmal are attributed only aerial firing. However, no crime empties were taken into possession by the police negating and creating a dent in the story of the prosecution. As regards Muhammad Anwar, he is father of five of the petitioners, and a man of advanced age. Even otherwise, he was unarmed. Likewise, Muhammad Saeed, petitioner, he is a student of 8th class, whose exams are said to be commencing tomorrow. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that a cross-version was also registered by the police. He points out that the injuries suffered by the petitioners were suppressed by the complainant in the FIR. He adds that there is a delay of three days in reporting the occurrence to the police, implying that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case after due deliberations.
4. Learned APG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant oppose the grant of pre-arrest bail on the ground that the petitioners have failed to point out any mala fide prompting the complainant to involve them in the case falsely. However, both of them state that they have no objection to the confirming of the anticipatory bail to the extent of Muhammad Hussain, Liaqat Ali, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Anwar. As regards the other accused/petitioners, they submit that they inflicted injuries on Khalid, victim. They insist that Muhammad Akmal, Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Saeed and Muhammad Naveed, accused/petitioners are not entitled to the extraordinary relief in the shape of pre-arrest bail.
Towards the end of their submissions, they underscore that the cross-version got registered by the petitioners was found to be false.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned APG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the record, with their assistance.
6. Since the learned Law Officer and the learned counsel for the complainant do not take exception, to the confirming of pre-arrest bail to Muhammad Hussain, Liaqat Ali, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Anwar petitioners, pre-arrest bail granted to them by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2013 is hereby confirmed, subject to their furnishing of bail/surety bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000/- each with one surety each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Likewise Muhammad Saeed, the petitioner who is alleged to have given a Sota blow to Khalid on his right ankle, I am inclined to admitting him to pre-arrest bail considering that he is a student of 8th class and his exams, are due to commence tomorrow. His tender age is another factor inclining this Court to grant him bail. As for other petitioners, namely, Muhammad Akmal, Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Naveed, they have failed to point out mala fide of the complainant or the police to implicate them in the case. They are nominated in the FIR with the specific roles ascribed to them. Their cross-version has also been found to be false. They might have a case for the grant of post-arrest bail but they are not entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed to their extent.