Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, seeks to withdraw this petition to the extent of petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 namely Mushtaq alias Mujahid and Jamshed Anwar alias Anwar , hence, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn to their extent.
2. Through this petition under Section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioners namely , Abdul Hameed, Muhammad Javaid and Haq Nawaz seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 238 of 2019, dated 01.09.2019, registered at Police Station Kohna., District Khanewal, in respect of of fences under Sections 337-D, 337-F(i), 148 and 149, PPC.
3. The allegations against the petitioners, as culled from the evidentiary material produced before the Court, is that they along with their co-accused gave injuries on the persons of the complainant namely Muhammad Farooq and his brother namely Ghulam Abbas.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perused the record with their able assistance.
5. This is a pre-arrest bail petition and only tentative assessment of the evidentia ry material produced before the Court can be made at this stage. In the FIR as well as statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. of the witnesses, the allegations against the petitioners namely Abdul Hameed, Muhammad Javaid and Haq Nawaz are couched in generalized and collective terms without there being any specific role attributed to any of the petitioners namely Abdul Hameed, Muhammad Javaid and Haq Nawaz of causing a specific injury on either of the two injured witnesses. Furthermore, all the three petitioners namely Abdul Hameed, Muhammad Javaid and Haq Nawaz are related to each other as well as co-accused namely Mushtaq alias Mujahid and Jamshaid Anwar alias Anwar , who have been attributed specific roles of causing injuries on the person of the complainant and his brother , hence, possibility does exist that due to said relationship of the petitioners with the co-accused as mentioned above, they have been falsely involved in the case by widening the net by the complainant. In view of the allegations leveled against the petitioners being joint and collective in nature, it would be learned trial Court who will be in the best position to adjudge as to whether the petitioners have been falsely involved in the occurrence, or otherwise, after recording evidence. It is not discernable from the perusal of FIR as well as stateme nts recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. as to whether the co-accused of the petitioners namely Mushtaq alias Mujahid and Jamshaid Anwar alias Anwar needed any help or aid of the petitioners in actuating their intention of the causing injures on the persons of the injured witnesses. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argue d that all three petitioners were duly armed with weapons, the recovery of which is yet to be made from them, hence, they do not deserve to be granted the extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. Suffice is to observe that for the purpose of the recovery , it is not necessary that petitioners be sent behind the bars as the same purpose can be achieved by the Investigating Officer by obtaining a search warrant. It will not be out of context to refer the observation of august Supreme Court of Pakistan, expressed in case reported as "Aamir Bashir and another v. Stale and another" (PLJ 2018 SC 445), in somewhat similar circumstances, which is 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 on pre-arrest bail. The interrogation inside the lockup of the police station or inside the police station would make a very little difference."
It is also recorded in the FIR that a disput e regarding passage was simmering betw een the parties since a long and the parties were dagger drawn with each other on that score. The investigation to the extent of petitioners is complete. The Investigating Officer has already verified the version of the petition ers and the complainant during investigation of the case and in view of the above mentioned facts, the asser tion of learned counsel for the petitioners that the involvement of the petitioners in the case seems to be based on mala fide and malicious intent, is an assertion which cannot be said to be without substance or foundation at this stage. Sending the petitioners behind the bars at this stage would serve no useful purpose and will cause irreparable loss to their reputation.
Reliance is placed on the case of 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 positively 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."
6. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed to the extent of petitioners Abdul Hameed (Petitioner No. 1), Muhammad Javaid (Petitioner No. 2) and Haq Nawaz (Petitioner No. 5) and ad-interim pre- arrest bail already granted to them vide order dated 03.10.2019 is confirmed subject to their furnishing of fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees One Hundred Thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
7. 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 .