1. ' This is a petition for pre-arrest bail on behalf of Khuda Bux, Maqeem, Hakim and Ghulam Hussain who are involved alongwith 3 other persons in a case registered against them for offences under section 307/452/148/149, P.P.C. And 13(d) of Arms Ordinance.
2. ' It is alleged in the F.I.R. That on the last night the complainant Ghulam Hussian Machhi was in his house a longwith his family members and relations Hamzo and Abdullah. His brother Muhammad Issa who is driver was not available in the house. At about 11 p.m. The door of their house from the cattle shed (Lohra) was opened and about 6/7 persons entered in the house. He flashed the torch and challenged the culprits. In the meantime his nephew Hamzo and relation Abdullah woke up.
3. They also saw the culprits on torch light. They were seen and identified on the light of the torch to be petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and three unknown persons whose faces were open and to whom they can identify. After entering the house the said persons fired with guns direct on his nephew Hamzo and relation Abdullah. They all fell down on the ground. The gun fire had hit on the walls and ground of his house. The petitioners and those unknown persons thinking them to be injured had taken away ornaments including four pairs of Neelam (gold), two pairs of Tops (gold), three golden rings and one necklace and 12 Tolas of silver and arm-wears (Banhee) of silver from their house and went away. Thereafter, they raised cries. On their cries Ishaque and others reached from nearby villages. They narrated the above story to them and thereafter in the morning they lodged the report.
4. ' The petitioners filed bail application before the Sessions Judge which was rejected. The petitioners also filed bail petition earlier before this Court and they were directed to approach the Sessions Court. Accordingly they moved the petition before the Sessions Judge which was rejected.
5. ' Mr. Faiz Muhammad Soomro, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have been connected with the offence due to mala fides intention by police.
6. ' On the other hand Mr. A.K. Jatoi learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. He submitted that except the bald statement in the petition, there is nothing on the record to show any mala fides against the police.
7. I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances in the light of the record. This is a petition for pre-arrest bail. It is well-settled by now that accused persons are not entitled to the grant of this extraordinary relief unless they specifically allege and satisfy the Court by producing the evidence that their intended arrest is tainted with mala fides. It may be noticed that no such mala tides has been alleged by the petitioners. The bare or bald statement in the petition that they were involved by the police in collusion with the complainant with the threatened action by police to arrest the petitioners is mala fide one at the instance of the complainant party and the complainant wanted to wreak vengeance by getting the petitioners arrested and insulted. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not produced any such material before me. In the circumstances, I find that the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of concession of pre-arrest bail, therefore, the order granting them interim pre-arrest bail is hereby recalled and this petition is dismissed. They can move the trial Court for bail after arrest if so advised.