' FARRUKH GULZAR AWAN, J. Muhammad Asif has sought concession of pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 233, dated 6.6.2015 registered under Section 337-A(ii)/337-F(i), PPC at Police Station, Rukanpur District Rahim Yar Khan.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 1.6.2015 at evening time, he alongwith his co-accused, in furtherance of their common intention while armed with Kassi, attacked upon the complainant and gave blows of reverse side of Kassi on right side of his head and also on the left side of Sikandar injured.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive; that there is an inordinate delay of 5 days in lodging the FIR.; that injury on the person of Sikandar injured has been declared Shaja-e-Khafifa, which is simple in nature; that injury attributed on the person of Rafique injured has been opined by the medical expert that the possibility of friendly hand cannot be ruled out; that the arrest of petition would serve no useful purpose rather would cause unjustifiable harassment and humiliation against the petitioner , therefore, he is not entitled to the extra-ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.
4. Learned DDPP assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed this petition.
5. Hearkened. Record scanned.
6. Bare perusal of F.I.R. shows that this occurrence allegedly took place on 1,6.2015 and the matter was reported to the police on 6.6.2015 with an inordin ate delay of 5 days and in such-like cases, if the matter is not promptly reported to the police, prima facie the presumption of deliberation and due consultation shall always attach to the proposition.
7. So far as the injuries are concerned, injury on the person of Sikandar PW was declared as Shaja-i-Khafifa falling under Section 337-A(i), PPC, which is bailable (wrong mentioned in the F.I.R. as 337-F(i), PPC). Regarding injury on the person of Rafique Ahmad falling under Section 337- A(ii), PPC, the medical expert has expressed his opinion that the possibility of friendly hand cannot be ruled out. The element of mala fide on the part of complainant regarding false implication of the petitioner in this case cannot be ruled out and the arrest of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose rather bring him to undue harassment and humiliation in the public.
' In the view of above, the petition in hand is allowed and the concession of ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner stands confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.