' This is an application for pre-arrest bail on behalf of Muhammad Arshad, Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Sarwar in a case under section 307/326/325/34, P. P. C., registered at P. S. Vehari, vide F. I. R. No, 250, dated 15th October, 1981.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention launched murderous assault upon Muhammad Akram on 15th October, 1981 in the area of Chak No, 22/W. B.
Of P. S. Sadar, Vehari.
3. As for petitioners it has been alleged that Sarwar was armed with knife, Afzal with sickle and Arshad with sota and they inflicted as many as 11 injuries on the person of the victim. The petitioners were arrested on 17th October, 1981 and allowed bail on 4th March, 1982 by the trial Court. The complainant moved an application for the cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners by the trial Court. On 28th June, 1982 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari cancelled the bail. The petitioners then approached this Court and were allowed interim bail.
4. On 11th July, 1982 it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was factually incorrect that the victim was completely blind. Thereupon, I directed the injured witness to appear before this Court. Consequently, he appeared on 18th July, 1982. I directed that he should be examined by an Eye Specialist, Nishtar Hospital, Multan. After examination, Dr. Sardar Ali, the Eye Specialist has submitted the report which reads as follows :- 'Mr. Muhammad Akram, presented himself for examination today the 3rd August, 1982 at 12.00 noon. The following are the findings :-
(1) Right Eye: ' Upper and lower eye-lids are fused on medial side with each other and to the eye-ball as a result of which movements on the to medial side are restricted. There is a small granuloma at 3 O'clock position of the cornea. Direct pupillary reaction to light is normal while consensual is absent. Visual acuity is 6/18, which improves to 6/6 with pin hole, but it does not improve with correction by lense.
Refractive media and fundus are normal in appearance.
(1) Left Eye : ' The upper and lower lids are fused with each other and with the eye-ball medially. The movements are restricted to medial side. Direct light reaction of the pupil is absent while the consensual is present. Visual acuity is reduced to blindness on optic atrophy because of injury.
' It is concluded from the above that he is totally blind from left eye as a result of injury and has reasonably good vision in right eye.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the bail granted to the petitioners was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge without legal justification. He raised the following points :-
(1) The ground taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the conclusion that Muhammad Akram was totally blind from both the eyes was incorrect and the grounds on which the bail was granted to the petitioners by the trial Court have sufficient weight.
(2) That Muhammad Arshad is a student of 3rd year and Muhammad Afzal is student of 9th class.
(3) The two eye-witnesses namely, Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Bashir have filed affidavit to the effect that they had not seen the occurrence.
(4) That the case is fixed for evidence.
(5) That they have already remained in judicial lock-up for more than 4 months, and lastly.
(6) Muhammad Akram is inv.Olved in several criminal cases and has other enemies also.
6. After hearing the learned counsel I find that on 9th February, 198 the application for bail after arrest of these petitioners was dismissed by this Court on merits but Mr. Faiz Rabbani Khan, Civil Judge/Magistrat Section 30, Vehari, granted interim hail to the petitioners on 4th March, 1982 and confirmed the same on 22nd April, 1982. I further find that according to the recent report of the Eye Specialist, Muhammad Akram is totally blind from left eye as a result of the injuries allegedly inflicted by Muhammad Sarwar petitioner No,
3. I further find that the injuries inflicted by Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Afzal have also been declared grievous and as such there was no legal justification for Mr. Fai Rabbani Khan, Magistrate Section 30, Vehari to allow bail to the petitioners. I further find that the mere fact that two petitioners are students is not a good ground to release them on bail. There is nothing on the record to show that they are less than 16 years in age. The other points raised by the learned counsel do not make out a good ground for the grant of pre-arrest bail. It is remarkable that the petitioners after the cancellation of bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not surrender and instead moved petition for pre-arrest bail in this Court.
7. For what has been stated above, it is not a fit case for the grant of bail to the petitioner. This petition is accordingly dismissed.