AALIA NEELUM, J.----The petitioners-Rasheed Ahmad, Waqas Ahmad and Aftab Ahmad seek pre arrest bail in case FIR No.1691-2020 dated 10.10.2020, under Sections 440, 148 and 149, P.P.C., subsequently added offence under Sections 337-F(i), 337-F(iii) and 324, P .P.C., registered at Police Station, Ghalib Market, Lahore.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. The petitioners Nos.1 and 3 are name d in the FIR with collective and joint role for causing murderous assault upon the complainant and his brother namely Hafiz Maeem with sharp edge weapon. Whereas the name of the petitioner No.2-W aqas Ahmad had surfaced on the record through supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 22.10.2020, in which he was assigned a specific role for causing injury on hand of brother of the complainant namely Hafiz Naeem with a bite. Admittedly , the petitioner No.2 is son of the petitioner No.1 and brother of the petitioner No.3 and non identity of the petitioner No.2 at the spot by the complainant and prosecution witnesses is not made out. As the petitioner No.2 also works with the petitioner No.1 in the shop located in front of the shop of complainant. Even otherwise, the petitioner No.1 moved an application for registration of case on 10.10.2020 whereupon rapt No.08 dated 11.10.2020 was incorporated and during investigation, through case diary No.09 dated 25.10.2020, the Investigating Officer has also brought on the record the version of the petitioner No.1, revealing that Aftab Ahmad, petitioner No.3 has also received injuries during the alleged occurrence and till date, the investigating of ficer has not investigated the version brought on the record by the petitioner No.1.
4. Admittedly , it is a case of two versions, one brought by the complainant on the record through FIR and the second was brought on the record by the petitioners through their defence, which was not investigated by the investigating officer. However , the same is supported by the Medico Legal Certificate. So, it is to be determined by the learned trial court that which version is correct one. All above facts, make case of the petitioners one of further inquiry . False implication of the petitioners cannot be ruled out. The petitioners have successfully made out a case for pre-arrest bail and at this stage, sending the petitioners behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose for the prosecution.
5. For the reasons supra, instant petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.