' Muhammad Asif son of Muhammad Bashir has sought his pre-arrest bail in a case under section 307/325/148/149/109, P.P.C., registered against him and others at Police Station Chak Jhumra, District Faisalabad, vide F.I.R. No, 347, dated 7-7-1989. The aforesaid case was registered on the statement of Mahmood Akhtar son of Khushi Muhammad.
2. Briefly, the allegations are that Muhammad Saleem son of Lal Din, Liaqat Ali, Siraj Din sons of Ibrahim, Muhammad Afzal alias Bhola son of Barkat Ali armed with iron rods, Muhammad Arif alias Akhtar son of Maulvi Sohan armed with hockey, Muhammad Asghar son of Barkat Ali, Muhammad Asif petitioner armed with sticks, Ajmal Rafique son of Muhammad Rafique and Khalid Mahmood son of Muhammad Bashir armed with carbines came at the Company Bagh, Chak Jhumra, where the complainant and his brother Maqbool Ahmad had also come for exercise purposes.
Immediately on arrival, Muhammad Saleem shouted that they will not allow Maqbool Ahmad to go alive. Ajmal Rafique and Khalid Mahmood fired from their carbines ineffectively and simultaneously declared that if anybody dared to come nearby, he will be done to death there and then. The remaining accused opened an agression upon Maqbool Ahmad, thereby inflicting injuries with their respective weapons on different parts of his body.
' The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he gave a stick blow on the forehead of the victim which was declared simple by the doctor. The motive as pointed out by the complainant in the F.I.R. Is that a civil litigation was going on between the father of the complainant and one Muhammad Hanif. Further, a few days earlier to the occurrence, a quarrel also took place between Maqbool Ahmad and Muhammad Hanif. It is alleged that it was Muhammad Hanif who instigated the petitioner and his co-accused to inflict injuries to Maqbool Ahmad in execution of their common object.
' Pre-arrest bail petition moved by the petitioner was refused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, on 19-7-1989 mainly on the ground that the case falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P:C.
3. Learned counsel urges that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime in the peculiar circumstances of the case. He submits that the possibility that the petitioner was implicated falsely, being a friend and partyman of co-accused, cannot be ruled out.
It is also brought to my notice that the petitioner is a student of intermediate class and that he has to appear in his examination shortly. He comes of a respectable family and was never involved or convicted in any criminal case throughout his life. He will, therefore, be immensely humiliated and harassed in case he is arrested by the police in the case and thus his bright future shall be ruined.
' Learned counsel for the State and the complainant have opposed the grant of bail relief to the ptitioner. They submit that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With a specific role in the commission of the crime and as such he is not entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The admitted position in the case is that the petitioner inflicted a simple injury on the person of Maqbool Ahmad and that he did not repeat the injury to the victim although he was definitely in a position to do so.
This will lead to irresistible conclusion that he had no intention whatsoever to cause more harm to the victim. The petitioner being a student and less than 18 years of age is surely a strong circumstance which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State and the complainant during their arguments. It is true that earlier the scope for granting pre-arrest bail was very much limited. A learned Full Bench in Hidayat Ullah Khan v. The Crown PLD 1949 Lah. 21, observed that pre-arrest bail should be allowed to the accused 'with the very greatest care and is restricted to exceptional cases'. In Murad Khan v. Fazal-e-Subhan and another PLD 1983 SC 82 and Zia-ul-Hassan v. The State PLD 1984 SC 192 inter alia the concept of pre-arrest bail and after arrest bail was hi. Blighted and a clear test was laid down under which Courts of the country can exercise their power of granting or refusing bail before arrest to the accused. It was observed in Murad Khan's case that it has to be shown by the accused that he is being subjected to humiliation and unjustified harassm ent with ulterior motive and that mala fides of intended arrest has also to be shown by the accused. The earlier judgment of the learned Full Bench in Hidayat Ullah Khan's case was also taken into consideration in Murad Khan's case by the Honourable Supreme Court. It appears that the Honourable Supreme Court has widened the scope for grant of pre-arrest bail to accused in Meeran Bux v. State PLD 19439 SC 347. In the said case bail was allowed to an accused who was specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. With a specific role in the commission of murder. It may also be noted that the principles laid down in Murad Khan's case and Jamal-ud-Din v. The State 1985 SCMR 1949 were also taken into consideration in the said judgment. In the cited case Meeran Baldish was admitted to pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge in a case under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. On an application by the complainant, the learned High Court of Sind proceeded to recall the bail granting order of the learned Sessions Judge, following the rule laid down in Murad Khan's case. The Honourable Supreme Court, however, set aside the order of the learned High Court and restored that of the learned Sessions Judge on the ground among others that the injury attributed to the appellant is simple and is also on non-vital part of the deceased and that the accused earlier did not abuse the concession of bail in any manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the dictum laid down in Meeran Bakhsh's case for the grant of relief to him.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. In my humble assessm ent a change in granting pre-arrest bail to the accused can easily be spelt out from the close reading of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. The facts of the case in hand and that of the Meeran Bakhsh's case are somewhat indentical. In both the cases accused are mentioned with specific roles in the F.I.R. And that they were armed with weapons. In Meeran Bakhsh's case the accused while armed with a gun was alleged to have fired a shot which landed on the leg of the deceased Badshah Dino. In the case in hand as observed earlier, the petitioner was armed with a stick which is definitely far less lethal than a fire-arm weapon like a gun. In addition thereto, the petitioner has categorically stated in paragraph (a) of his petition that he has been involved in a false fabricated case with a mala fide intention to subject him to harassment and humiliation. It is also alleged that the lodgment of the F.I.R. Is delayed by two days without any cogent explanation. It is also maintained that the case of the petitioner is that of further inquiry. The description of the incident was given by the complainant in its minutest details which in turn will demonstrate that the F.I.R. Was written with great care and deliberation. The question whether the petitioner was present at the spot and in fact participated in the commission of the crime is a question which essentially shall be determined by the trial Court after recording evidence of the parties. This is not the allegation of the State or the complainant that the petitioner has misused the concession during the period he remained on ad interim pre-arrest bail. Again, in Siraj Din v.
Saghir-ud-Din 1970 SCMR 30, the Honourable Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal against the bail allowed to the accused aged 16/17 years on the ground of his minority. The benefit of age can also go to the petitioner following the above authority.
7. Respectfully following the judgment in Meeran Bux's case, I proceed to confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the petitioner vide my order, F dated 16-9-1989. This disposes of Criminal Miscellaneous No, 3355/B of 1989.
8. Whatever has been said, observed and held above by me shall not at all influence the opinion of the learned trial Judge or the course of the trial in any manner whatsoever.