1. Through instant petition, petitioners Muhammad Ramzan. Allah Ditta and Muhammad Hanif have sought the premium of bail in cross-version recorded vide Rapt No, 5 dated 05.10.2016 in respect of offences under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(iii), 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337- L(ii) & 337-K(ii), 148 & 149 PPC in case FIR No, 603 dated 03.10.2016, in respect of offences under Sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(ii), 337- H(ii), 354, 431, 148 & 149 PPC, registered at Police Station, Saddar Vehari.
2. 2.As per application for recording cross-version submitted by Khalid Javed, an accused of the FIR, the petitioners along with their co-accused 14 nominated accused and 10-unknown accused persons while armed with different weapons, formed an unlawful assembly on 29.09.2016 in the area of Chak No, 22/W.B. and attacked upon the complainant of the cross-version and caused injuries to Riaz, Ijaz, Muhammad Tahir, Nisar and Abdul Razaq. Hence, this cross-version was registered.
3. 3.I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Deputy Disirict Public Prosecutor appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the record.
4. 4.Petitioner No, 1 Muhammad Ramzan was attributed the role of causing injury by giving butt blow of pistol on the head of injured Nisar whereas Petitioner No, 2 Allah Ditta was attributed the role of causing injury with the butt of his rifle on the head and forehead of injured Ijaz. The aforesaid injuries on the persons of both the injured PWs were declared Shajjah-i-mudihah' falling under Section 337-A(ii) PPC, which is non-bailable. The recovery of weapons of offence from both the aforesaid petitioners is yet to be effected, therefore, they are not entitled to the extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. This petition to the extent of Petitioners No, 1/Muhammad Ramzan and Petitioner No, 2/Allah Ditta stands dismissed. Relief of ad interim pre arrest bail already granted to said petitioners is hereby recalled.
5. 5.The role attributed to Muhammad Hanif/Petitioner No, 3 is generalized and no specific injury was attributed to him. Complicity of Petitioner No, 3 for his vicarious liability shall be determined by the trial Court after recording of the evidence. Arrest of said petitioner would serve no useful purpose as he has already joined the investigation.
6. 6.In view of above, the petition in hand to the extent of Petitioner No, 3/Muhammad Han if is allowed and the concession of ad interim pre arrest bail already granted to him stands confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000/-(one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. 7.Before parting with the order, it has been seriously observed that the aforesaid cross-version was recorded on 05.10.2016 wherein five persons had received injuries but the perusal of record shows that till date the investigating officer has not yet recorded the statements of said injured PWs. On Court's query, the police officer in attendance states that the injured PWs did not appear before him for recording their statements. Such conduct of the investigating officer speaks volume of his dishonesty and unfair investigation on his part. District Police Officer, Vehari is directed to inquire into the matter at his own end and proceed against the delinquent police officer under intimation to this Court through the Deputy Registrar (J) within a fortnight positively.