Abdul Malik has applied for bail before arrest. Charge against him is that he and others committed offence punishable under section 436/34, P.P.C. The report of the occurrence was made by one Iqbal on 10-6-1986 at 6-15 a.m. In which the occurrence was stated to have taken place the same day at 3-30. The petitioner having failed to obtain the concession of pre-arrest bail from the learned Sessions Judge, has come to this Court for the same purpose.
2. Malik Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner, Kh. Nazir Ahmad, Additional Advocate-General appeared on behalf of the State and Mr. Muhammad Akmal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant. They have been heard.
3. In the first report Ali Akbar and Muhammad were stated to have reached the spot when the complainant raised alarm. They have not mentioned the presence of petitioner on the spot at the relevant, time in their statements recorded by the police. Ali Akbar has also stated that Sharafat was not present at that time, although the complainant has stated in the F.I.R. That Sharafat, his nephew, was present at the relevant time. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that there is previous enmity between the parties, as mentioned in the first report, the mala fides of the complainant in charging the petitioner for the crime could not, at this stage, be excluded from consideration. Further, the presence of accused on the spot after setting the 'bandi' on fire is also a matter of further inquiry. In the circumstances, the petitioner appears to be entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The order passed by this Court on 1-7-1986 is confirmed.