Through this petition under Section 498, Cr.P.C petitioner, the namely, Khizar, seeks pre-arrest bail in the cross version case recorded on the rapt of Muhammad Mumtaz Ahmad in FIR No. 238 of 2019 dated 03.06.2019, registered at police station Shaher Sultan, District Muzaffargarh; in respect of offences under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-A (i), 337F(vi), 148 and 149 PPC whereas this bail petition to the extent of Petitioner No.1, namely Ansar was dismissed due to non-prosecution on 26.09.2019.
2. The allegation as against the petitioner in the cross version recorded on the rapt of Muhammad Mumtaz Ahmad is that the petitioner , while armed with a dagger , gave an injury to Muhammad Bilal (injured prosecution witness) on his head.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perused the record with their able assistance.
4. This is a pre-arrest bail petition and only tentative assessment can be made of the evidentiary material produced before the Court at this stage. It is case of two versions one existing in the 'shape of FIR No. 238 of 2019 dated 03.06.2019 recorded on the statement of Ghulam Sarwar and the other existing in the shape of rapt recorded on the statement of Muhammad Mumtaz Ahmad. Persons from both the sides were injured during the said occurrence. In the FIR got lodged by Ghulam Sarwar, uncle of the petitioner, Ghulam Nazak, Fazal and Muhammad Hussain were injured whereas the cross version recorded on the statement of Muhammad Mumtaz Ahmad, Bilal, Imran and Muhammad Mumtaz Ahmad were injured. It is a settled principle of law that in the cases of counter-versions, arising from the same incident, one given by the complainant in the shape of FIR and the other given by the opposite party in shape of Rapt, such cases call for further inquiry and probe as contemplated under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. It is yet to be determined as to which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed against and which version is correct is to be decided by the learned trial Court which is supposed to record evidence and also appraise the evidence in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard. Reliance in this regard can be placed to the case of "Shoaib Mehmood Butt vs. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others" (1996 SCMR 1845) and also upon the case of "Ghulam Abbas Vs The State and others" (2016 SCMR 2048) wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under: "Admittedly, it is a case of two versions and possibility of false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. It is to be determined by the learned trial Court after elaborate evaluation of the evidence to be recorded by it as to which party was the aggressor and which party was aggressed upon."
Learned Deputy Prosecutor General as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently argued that recovery is yet to be effected from the petitioner , hence he is not entitled for the extra ordinary relief of pre- arrest bail. Suffice is to observe that arrest of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of recovery and the said purpose can be achieved by procuring the search warrants by the Investigating Officer Reliance is placed on the case reported as "Aamir Bashir and another v. State and another" (PLJ 2018 SC 445), wherein it is held as under: "The plea of the Advocate General that the investigating agency has been deprived to interrogate both the petitioners for the recovery of the crime pistol and to collect further evidence after getting their custody , is not acceptable in the circumstances of the case. Moreover , this Court time and again has held that this could not be a ground for refusal of pre-arrest bail because the police has to use proper skills of investigation while interrogating the accused person, staying ort pre-arrest bail. The interrogation inside the lockup of the police station or inside the police station would make a very little difference."
Investigation of the case is complete and the version of the petitioner as well as complainants of both the versions have been verified by Investigating Officer. The assertion that the involvement of the petitioner in the case seems to be based on mala fide and malicious intent is an assertion which cannot be said to be without substa nce or foundation at this stage. Sending the petitioner behind the bars at this stage would-serve no useful purpose.
Reliance is placed on the case of Khalil Ahmad Soomro and others v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 730) wherein the following principle has been enunciated: "Although for grant of pre-arrest bail one of the pre conditions is that the accused person has to show that his arrest is intended by the prosecution out of mala fide and for ulterior consideration. At pre-arrest bail stage, it is difficult to prove the element of mala fide by the accused through positive! solid evidence/materials and the same is to be deduced and inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case and if some events-hints to that effect are available, the same would validly constitute the element of mala fide."
5. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner, namely, Khizar, vide order dated 29.08.2019, is confirmed subject to his furnishing of fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. Needless to mention that any observations made in the above order are tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial Court in any manner .