' This appeal is addressed against the orders of District Criminal Court, Mirpur, dated 6th of February and 14th of February, 1984, whereby respondents were allowed bail pre-arrest.
2. A case was registered against the respondents at Police Station Bhimber, Chowki Ali Baig, under sections 307, 325, 147, 148, 149 and 34, A. P. C., read with sections 14 and 15, Islamic Penal Laws Act.
The respondents were allowed interim bail on 28th of January, 1984. The order was confirmed in respect of Nazir and Muhammad Riaz on 6th of February, and in respect of Muhammad Asif on the 14th of February, 1984. The allegation is that the complainant was attacked by respondents.
Muhammad Riaz was ascribed firing twice with revolver and Nazir and Muhammad Asif were attributed infliction of grievous injuries by hatchet and basket, on the legs of the complainant.
According to the medical report, the legs of the complainant were fractured by blunt weapon. Mr. Basharat Ahmad Sheikh, the learned counsel for the appellant, invited attention of the Court to the impugned order and pointed out that the trial Court failed to apply its mind properly to the attribution and allowed bail pre-arrest mechanically. It was suggested that in a case of grievous hurt, particularly in presence of allegation of an attempt to murder, the question of bail pre-arrest needs serious approach. He cited Murad Khan v. Fazal-e-Subhan (1).
4. The relevant provision of law relating to bail is covered under sections 496, 497, 498 and 561-A, Cr. P. C. Section 496, Cr. P. C. Covers bailable offences. Non-bailable cases are dealt with under section 497, Cr. P. C. Section 497(1) provides that bail shall not be allowed in cases where sentence is likely to be awarded as death or life imprisonment. Subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C. Vests discretion to the Court to consider the question of grant of bail when in its opinion, the case was considered as one of further inquiry. The cases of bail pre-arrest are settled under sections 498 and 561-A, Cr. P. C. The scheme of law applicable to the non-bailable cases provides a guideline under section 497, Cr. P. C., and the Court is vested with jurisdiction to grant or refuse bail in the light of such scheme. The cases of bail pre-arrest, on the other hand, are dealt in a different fashion. It is always in presence of mak fade, apparent concoction, fabrication and proposed compassionate grounds which are considered the, grounds for allowing bail pre-arrest. The Court is authorised to allow pre-arrest bail in presence of all or any one of the aforesaid reasons. In the present case, the lower Court seems to ignore the basic principle of bail before arrest. The case was not decided in a judicial fashion. It may be mentioned that in case of non-bailable offences, the Court should be slow in granting bail before arrest in absence of the reasons enumerated above. The tendency of leniency and latitude in bail has, in fact, aided in increase in the crimes.
4. The Investigating Officer present in the Court states that necessary recoveries have already been made from the respondents and the investigation was about to be completed. As the investigation is at the verge of completion, it is not deemed expedient to deprive the accused-respondents of the concession of bail, already allowed by the lower Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1983 SC 82 {{FOOT NOTE}}