Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.- Allah Bakhsh petitioner has moved this petition for cancellation of pre- arrest bail allowed to Jafar Iqbal, Abdul Ghani and Sattar respondents by the Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, vide order dated 2.5.1989. At the preliminary hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the petition against Abdul Ghani and Sattar, respondents No. 2 and 3. The petition was admitted against Jafar Iqbal respondent No.1.
2. The FIR version is that on 18.1.1989 at 6.15 a.m. Allah Bakhsh complainant was on way to the mosque to offer morning prayer when Jafar Iqbal respondent, Abdul Ghani and Sattar confronted him andCr. C. 702 Key Law Reports 1989 simuItaneously Jafar Iqbal fired at him hitting his right shoulder, as a resuIt of which he fell to the ground.
A dispute between the brothers of the complainant and the cousins of Jafar Iqbal was stated to be the motive for the offence. Both the parties had been bound down to keep the peace.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Jafar Iqbal respondent fired his gun at Allah bakhsh first-informant from a very close range and he remained in hospital for more than twenty days, therefor, there was absolutely no justification for the grant of pre-arrest bail, Particularly when no mala fides on the part of the police had been alleged. It is further submitted that the grant of pre-arrest bail has hampered the investigation inasmuch as no recovery could be effected from Jafar Iqbal respondent as he was not available for interrogation. The learned State counsel also supports this petition for cancellation of bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that three investigating officers who investigated the case before it was taken over by the DSP , had not arrested Jafar Iqbal and this fact goes a long way to show that he was found innocent. It is further submitted that the firearm injury on the person of Allah Bakhsh was declared simple in nature and the doctor had opined that possibility of fabrication regarding firearm injury could not be ruled out.
4. I have perused the record and given my careful consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. There is nothing on the record to indicate that Jafar Iqbal respondent was found innocent during any of the investigations. The injury attributed to the respondent was a firearm wound 8 cm x 5 cm on the outer aspect upper part of right arm, blackening around the posterior half of wound margin, muscle deep (superficial part of deItoid muscle damaged) with corresponding area of shirt and chadar burnt and blackening present on their posterior as pect, 9 cm below right shoulder joint. The medicolegal report bears a note that firearm injury "is within three feet however in this injury possibility of fabrication may not be ruled out". The doctor has not given any reason for this so-called opinion. The injured was admitted in the hospital on 18.1.1989 and was discharged on 6.2.1989. He had not fully recovered. He was re-admitted on 18.2.1989 and was discharged on 14.3.1989. Blackening around the wound indicates that he was fired at from a close range. In the circumstances, it was not a fit case for the grant of extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the pre-arrest bail allowed to the respondent by the Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, is cancelled.