' Ghulam Muhammad complainant (petitioner) lodged F.I.R. On 8-4-1984 at 9-30 p.m. Alleging therein that Allah Bakhsh accused had a quarrel with his brother Mumtaz. They were separated by his brother Muhammad Riaz. Allah Bakhsh accused felt annoyed on the intervention of Muhammad Riaz and left saying that he would take revenge. It is stated in the F.I.R. That on that day at Shaamwela, he (complainant) along with his brother Riaz and Dost Muhammad son of Jahan were sitting inside their own house. Zafar accused by standing outside the house called him. He went out and saw Zafar armed with revolver, Ashraf, Asghar and Allah Bakhsh armed with Sotas while Ahmad Sher empty handed present there. The moment he came out of his house, Allah Bakhsh gave Sota blow on his head. Ghulam Muhammad complainant raised alarm whereafter Riaz and Dost Muhammad also came out of the house, Zafar fired two successive shots which hit Dost Muhammad on his thigh and foot. Ahmad Sher allegedly held Riaz in Japha. Asghar gave Sota blow on the head of Dost Muhammad P.W. Ashraf gave Sota blows to Ghulam Muhammad complainant which fell on his hand. The occurrence was witnessed by Mumtaz son of Taj Muhammad. The accused then went away. After registration of the case, the police undertook investigation. The accused-respondents did not join investigation and instead filed an application for pre-arrest bail. They were allowed interim bail before arrest by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha on 9-4-1984 which was confirmed on 29-4-1984. Hence this petition for cancellation of bail.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition against Ahmad Sher accused as he was found innocent during investigation and did not carry any weapon at the time of the alleged occurrence. This petition against him is dismissed.
3. Regarding other accused, it is contended by the learned counsel that the accused came all the way from their house to the house of Ghulam Muhammad complainant armed with revolver and Sotas. They called on Ghulam Muhammad and started beating him. It is further contended that the accused were armed with revolver and Sodas and caused injuries to Ghulam Muhammad and Dost Muhammad. It is further argued that the accused did not join the investigation in this case before their interim bail before arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge or even there afer till today. It is, therefore, argued that it was not a case of bail before arrest. The learned counsel for the State supports this petition for cancellation of bail. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has filed affidavits of the accused-respondents wherein they have stated that they joined the investigation arid had In fact produced the crime weapons before the Investigating Officer but he did not record the same fact in the case diary with ulterior motive. The learned counsel has also produced medico-legal reports of Zafar Iqbal, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Akbar accused In support of his assertion that It was a case of two versions and that the injuries on the persons of the accused had not been explained by the prosecution. It was, therefore, argued that the bail of the respondents should not be cancelled. Reliance was also placed on Muhammad Mahmood Sultan v. The State 1978 P Cr. L J 104.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In this case the bail before arrest was allowed to the respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge keeping in view the nature of injuries on the persons of the witnesses and also the injuries on the persons of the accused respondents. It was held by him that the case against the accused was that of further inquiry. He, therefore, allowed them pre-arrest bail with a direction that they will continue to join the investigation in this case. These grounds were not the grounds for allowing bail before arrest in a case under section 307/148/149, P.P.C. The accused did not join the investigation in this case as stated by Rehmat Khan S.I. Who is present along with the record of the Police investigation. The crime weapons have yet to be recovered from the accused. I am not prepared to rely on the affidavits filed by the accused- respondents because as admitted by their learned counsel, they never complained against the conduct of the Investigating Officer to any superior Police Officer. The case law relied by the learned counsel is not attracted to the facts of this case because firstly, the accused in that case was a young boy of 14 years and secondly, after the accused of that case had been allowed interim bail before arrest by the Court, he had joined the investigation with the police.
In view of the above, the to Ashraf, Asghar, Zafar and Allah Bakhsh accused cancelled.
Bail cancelled.