' The petitioners namely Muhammad Yousaf, Ghulam Murtaza and Imran Abbas seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 495/2015 dated 12.08.2015 offence under Section 337-A(iii), 148, 149, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station, Yousafwala, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly the, prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Is that petitioners inflicted injuries on the jaw of the complainant.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. There is delay of about 22 days in lodging the FIR, which has not been explained. The petitioner Yousaf is named in the FIR with a specific role of giving fists blow on the jaw of the complainant resulting into fracture of the same, which is duly corroborated by the MLC issued by the doctor. The complainant and his PWs also supported the version of prosecution in their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, the petitioner Muhammad Yousaf is not entitled for extra-ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, hence to this extent the instant bail petition is hereby dismissed.
5. Although the petitioner Ghulam Murtaza was allegedly armed with pistol but no injury or overt act is attributed to him, whereas Imran Abbas allegedly only-accompanied the aforementioned petitioners. He was also not attributed any specific role. The I.O. Present before the Court has frankly conceded that both the petitioners have already joined the investigation of the instant case, which is complete. They are previously non-convict. No useful purpose would be served by handing over the person of Ghulam Murtaza and Imran Abbas petitioners to the police.
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners Ghulam Murtaza and Imran Abbas vide order dated 04.11.2015 is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (Rupees one lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the observations made supra are tentative in nature and would not prejudice the case '"of either side at trial stage.