SAMAN RAFAT IMTIAZ J. Through the instant petition, the Petitioner Rizwan Hussain s/o Mubarak Hussain seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.25/2022 dated 06.01.2022 registered for the offence under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C. at Police Station Bhara Kahu, Islamabad.
2. Record reveals that the Petitioner applied for pre-arrest bail before Additional Sessions Judge (East), Islamabad, which was declined, vide Order dated 22.02.2022. Hence, present petition for bail before arrest.
3. The case of the prosecution, as per FIR, is that on 04.01.2022 at about 12 noon the Complainant / Respondent No.2 appeared in the Bhara Kahu office of concerned Halqa Patwari for record of his land where Rizwan Hussain s/o Mubarak, present Petitioner , was already present. It was alleged in the FIR that the Petitioner has wrongly made entry of possession from the previous Halqa Patwari in the Complainant' s Khasra Nos.577-576 and in these Khasra numbers Complainant was already owner-in-possession before manipulation. In this regard the Complainant' s maternal uncle, Nisar Ahmed, filed an application before the Collector for correction of wrong entry .
On requisition of record, the Petitioner became angry and used abusive language and threatened the Complainant of dire consequences. Complainant went out of the office where the Petitioner and two unknown persons caught hold of the Complainant and the Petitioner hit the Complainant' s left knee with rod due to which he fell down and became injured. According to the FIR, Tahir Akbar Khan Afridi s/o Ali Akbar Khan Afridi, present there, and other persons saved the Complainant from the accused persons. It is further stated in the FIR that the Complainant and Tahir Akbar Khan Afridi were the eye witnesses of the above said occurrence. The dispute between the parties, mentioned in the FIR, is filing of the application for correction of entry in respect of land.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner , inter alia, contended that the FIR is concocted, baseless and result of connivance of Complainant with the local police just to show their fake efficiency before their high-ups and if the police succeeds in their designs the Petitioner will suffer irreparable loss; that during the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer gave his findings in favour of Petitioner and DSP, Police Station Bhara Kahu, also inquired the matter and resultantly the Petitioner is innocent and the injury was declared self-inflicted; that the allegation levelled against the Petitioner is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless; that the Petitioner is quite innocent and he had not even a remote connection with the alleged occurrence; that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case with malafide intent and ulterior motives of the Complainant; that the Petitioner is previously non-convict; that the Petitioner is local inhabitant and there is no chance of his absconding in case the present petition is accepted; that the case of the Petitioner is one of the further inquiry and probe; and that the Petitioner is ready to furnish the solvent surety to the entire satisfaction of this Honouarble Court. Learned counsel further submitted that there is a delay of two days in registration of FIR, which makes the prosecution story doubtful; that the punishment of alleged offence is seven years by Tazir and otherwise Daman. Learned counsel relied on Muhammad Musa Vs. The State, 2018 YLR 171.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the Complainant vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner. He submitted that the occurrence is not denied by the Petitioner and the delay is because Medico Legal report was required to be obtained; that specific role is attributed to the Petitioner which is also corroborated by the medial report; and that the weapon is yet to be recovered from the Petitioner. He concluded by stating that the Petitioner is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.
6. The learned State Counsel submitted that according to the Police investigation the injuries sustained by the Complainant were due to fall and not due to blow . He supported the grant of bail to the Petitioner .
7. Heard arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the police record submitted at the time of hearing.
8. Needless to say that only tentative assessment is made for the purposes of bail before arrest. It is noted from Zimni No. 8 dated 08-03 2022 that according to the police investigation, occurrence of altercation was found but it was not proved that the Petitioner struck the Complainant in fact what has emerged is that the Complainant slipped due to rain water .
9. It is observed that the date of occurrence is alleged to be 04.01.2022 whereas FIR was registered on 06.01.2022. The explanation given by the learned counsel for the Complainant was that delay of two days was on account of the fact that the FIR was based on injuries sustained by the Complain ant for which the Medico Legal Report was required to be obtained, however , perusal of the Medico Legal Report shows that the same was obtained on 04.01.2022 within an hour of the alleged occurrence. In such circumstances the possibility of consultation cannot be ruled out which is for the Trial Court to ascertain along with whether the injury was caused to the Complainant due to the blow allege dly struck by the Petitioner or on account of the Complainant falling to the ground. Therefore, the case is that of further inquiry into the guilt of the Petitioner .
10. Admittedly , the Petitioner is previously non-convict. He is not involved in any other criminal case. No apprehension has been expressed that the Petitioner will abscond or tamper with the evidence if released on bail.
Even otherwise the alleged offence does not carry punishment which would fall within the prohibitory clause. In similar facts and circumstances the Hono urable Supreme Court was pleased to confirm ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the accused in case titled Dildar Ahmad Vs. The State, 2022 SCMR 264 as well as Muhammad Musa Vs. The State, 2018 YLR Note 171 .
11. For what has been discussed above, this bail petition is accepted and the earlier ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the Petitioner, vide order dated 25.02.2022, is hereby confirmed, against the surety bond already furnished, however, the Petitioner shall join the investigation as and when required and appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing without fail.
12. All the observations made hereinab ove are tentative in nature and shall have no bearing on the final determination of guilt or innocence by the trial Court.