' The petitioners, Ashiq Hussain and Khalid Hussain seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 580/14 dated 24.9.2014 registered under Sections 452, 354, 337-A.I), 148 and 149 FPC at Police Station Luddan, District Vehari on the complaint of Mst. 'Shehnaz Bibi wife of Muhammad Yousaf.
2. The prosecution version as narrated in the FIR is that the present petitioners' along with co- accused Shahzad son of Ashiq and two unknown persons entered into the house of the complainant after climbing over the wall and started demolishing the boundary wall of her house.
On the intervention of the complainant the petitioners got infuriated, caught the complaint from hair and started beating with kicks and fist blows. The Petitioner No. 1 Ashiq Hussain allegedly gave a sota blow on the head of the complainant whereas the co-accused Shahzad hit on her face with the hatchet which hit on her right foot. In the same manner Khalid Hussain gave sota blow which hit on the right food of the complainant. It was finally alleged that the petitioners along with co- accused persons tried to take illegal possession of the house of the complainant.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. The offences under Sections 354, 337-A.I), 148 and 149, PPC are bailable.
5. The petitioners applied for pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari by way of filing a petition which was dismissed on 22.10.2014 by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, Vehari dismissed the pre- arrest bail petition of the petitioners by observing that although offences which have been mentioned by the police in, the FIR are bailable, yet in view of the contents of FIR offences fall within the purview of Part-II .Of Section 506, PPC and Section 452, PPC.
6. The observation made by the learned Sessions Judge in his bail refusing order to the effect that the contents of FIR suggests attraction of Section 506(2) and Section 452, PPC is not in accordance with law. The learned Sessions Judge seized of an application for pre. Arrest bail is not legally competent to pass such observation and on the basis of the same dismissed the petition.
7. Chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides a mechanism for framing of the charge by a learned trial Court. According to the provisions of Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 the Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.
8. Here reading of Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 indicates that a charge can be altered or added at any time before judgment is pronounced by a trial Court and not by a Court of competent jurisdiction having seized of application for pre-arrest bail under Sections 497/498, Cr.P.C.
9. The learned Sessions Judge, Vehari by making above said observations and by adding Sections 506 and 562 and 452, PPC has, prima facie, went out of his jurisdiction which is not tenable in law.
The said findings of the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari are hereby set aside. It is made clear that if the matter is taken cognizance by a Court of competent jurisdiction the said Court at the time of framing of charge against the petitioners can add or alter the charge if so advised.
10. Since in the FIR Sections 354, 337-A.I), 148 and 149, PPC are mentioned same are bailable and this Court has no other option but to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners having been involved in bailable offences.
11. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition is allowed. The ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/. (rupees one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.