Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3201 /B of 1972 for the grant of anticipatory bail has been filed by Sahibzada Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri, M. N. A., Munir Ahmad, Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Aslam and Inayat A.I Baloch petitioners and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3324/B of 1972, has been filed by Sahibzada A.I Raza Khan Qasuri petitioner. Since both these petitions arise out of the same F. I. R., they are being taken up and disposed of t together by this order.
2. The aforementioned petitioners apprehend arrest in a case got registered under sections 307/148/149 and 325, P. P. C. Against them by Muhammad Akbar Toor complainant on the basis of F. I. R. No. No. 66 lodged at 1-30 p.m. On the 9th of April 1972 and recorded by Muhammad Ashraf S. I.
At Police Station Khudian, District Lahore. The allegation is that on the 8th of April 1972, at 4-30 p.m. a meeting was being held at Khudian in which besides others Sahibzada Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri petitioner delivered a speech. During the course of this speech Muhammad Akbar Toor complainant protested against the tone of the speaker, whereupon Sahibzada Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri petitioner became angry and instigated his companions to apprehend Muhammad Akbar Toor complainant and to kill him. Consequently Muhammad Aslam petitioner who is alleged to have been armed with a gun fired at him. The gunshot did not hit the complainant as he had already taken shelter behind a wall. Thereafter the complainant stealthily moved away from the spot and hid himself into a room of the office of the Town Committee and bolted the door from inside. Afterwards the companions of Sahibzada Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri petitioner fired many shots and then Sahibzada Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Afzal, Inayat A.I Baluch petitioners along with one Abdul Bari came to the room where the complainant was hiding and insisted on opening the door. The complainant opened the door. Sahibzada Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri petitioner then dragged him out and gave a dang blow on the back of his waist.
Inayat A.I Baluch petitioner gave a dang blow on his head. Muhammad Afzal petitioner gave a dung blow on his left wrist. Munir petitioner gave 3/4 dares blows on has back and Sahibzada A.I Raza Khan Qasuri petitioner brother of Sahibzada Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri petitioner gave 2/3 dung blows on leis waist. The complainant fell down. When be regained his consciousness he found himself on a cot in the police station and instead of recording his report about the occurrence he was arrested by the police as a culprit.
3. Muhammad Akbar Toor complainant was medically examined on the 9th of April 1972, and subsequently his injuries were also X-rayed on the 12th of April 1972. According to medical reports he had sustained 15 injuries on his person caused by a blunt weapon. Out of these 15 injuries 14 were simple and one was found to be grievous being fracture of left ulna bone. The police record further indicates that the statements of witnesses were recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. In this case on the 12th of April 1972, 19th of April 1572, and 20th of April 1972. The record further reveals that the investigation in this case had been completed against the petitioners by the 20th of April 1972.
4. It may be noted that regarding the same occurrence there was an--other version based on F. I.
R. No. 65, lodged a day. Earlier i.e., on the 8th of April 1972, at 6/7 p. m. By Inayat A.I Baloch petitioner against Muhammad Akbar Toot and others at Police Station Khudian which was recorded by Arif A.I A. S. I. On the basis of this F. I. R. a case was registered under section 307/ 143/ 149, P.P.C. Against Muhammad Akbar Toor and four others. It is alleged in this F. I. R. That at 4-30 p.m. On the 8th of April 1972, while the meeting at Khudian was being addressed by Sahibzada Ahmed Reza Khan Qasuri, petitioner, it was disrupted by Muhammad Akbar poor complainant who was armed with a revolver and his companions, namely, Umar Hayat armed with a revolver, Nazir Ahmad armed with a revolver, Ahmad A.I arrived with a Bang and Iqbal Shah armed with a dung Umar Hayat was about to use his revolver when it was snatched from him by Faiz Mohammad Inspector of Police.
Thereafter Muhammad Akbar Toor complainant fired some shots from his revolver in the direction of the stage where Sabibzada Ahmed Reza Khan Qasuri petitioner was delivering the speech. The other companions of Muhammad Akbar Toor complainant started giving blows with their dangs.
However no one was hurt, since Iqbal Shah and Ahmed A.I had threatened to attack Sahibzada Ahmed Reza Khan Qasuri with their longs and Muhammad Akbar Toor com--plainant had fired shots with his revolver, the people present at the meeting became infuriated and chased Muhammad Akbar Toor complainant and gave him a thrashing. Thereafter, the police force rescued him from the crowd and arrested him.
5. From a perusal of the two F. I. Rs. It prima facie appears that Muhammad Akbar Toor complainant had gone along with his companion to attend the aforementioned meeting in order to disrupt it. The meeting was disrupted and consequently he was arrested by the police. It also appears that F. I. R. No. 65 lodged at the instance of the petitioners' party was prior in time and had been recorded shortly after the occurrence whereas F. I. R. No. 66 lodged by Muhammad Akbar Toor complainant was recorded on the following day at 1-30 p. m. While he was in the custody of the police.
6. Anyway apart from the merits of the case and the determination of the question as which of the two versions of the occurrence was the correct version, I note that the investigation of the case against the petitioners on the basis of F. I. R. No. 66, had been completed by the 20th of April 1972.
I asked learned Assistant Advocate-General as to why no action has been taken against the petitioners when the investigation of the case against them had been completed on the 20th of April 1972, up to the dates of the filing of the present petitions i.e. The 16th of November 1972, and the 25th of November 1972, and why have they not been arrested? Learned Assistant Advocate- General only slates that the investigation had not been completed against the petitioners during this period and that the recoveries had yet to be made. I have also been informed that at some stage after the registration of counter cases against the accused and the complainant parties there existed possibilities of a compromise due to which no further action was taken. This reply is neither satisfactory nor convincing. It is obvious that two cross F. I. Rs. Had been lodged respecting the same occurrence by two rival parties and in both the cases, cages had been regis--tered under section 307/148/149, P. P. C. According to F. I. R. No. 66 Muhammad Akbar Toor complainant had sustained 15 injuries out of which one had been found grievous caused on the left arm.
Therefore, prima facie the petitioners could be charged with an offence under section 325, P. P. C.
Rather than under section 307, P. P. C. In F. I. R. No. 65, no one is stated to have received any injury at the hands of Muhammad Akbar Toor complainant and his companions. Consequently as I am told by learned counsel for the petitioners, all the accused persons is that F.I.R. Have been admitted to bail although a case against them has also been registered under section 307/ I 48/ 149, P. P. C.
Anyway the question as to whether Muhammad Akbar Toor complainant had gone to the said meeting along with his companions in order to disrupt the same would eventually be determined at the trial. But from the perusal of both the F. I. Rs., it prima facie appears that he bad been arrested by the police before he got F. I. R. No. 66 recorded. If Muhammad Akbar Toor com-- plainant bad been arrested by. The police on the basis of prior F. I. R. No. 65, then prim: facie it would seem that he disrupted the aforesaid meeting and as a result sustained injuries.
7. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has pointed out that Sahibzada Ahmed Reza Khan Qasuri petitioner has not surrendered before this Court as he is absent. It is submitted that it is an essential condition in a petition for anticipatory bail that the person concerned should submit himself to the Court. He places reliance on Chan Shah v. The Crown (PLD 1956 FC 43). Sahibzada Ahmed Reza Khan Qasuri petitioner was present at the time when I granted interim pre-arrest bail to him on the 17th of November 1972. Mian Mahmood A.I Qasuri, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that if he was present at the time of the grant of interim relief, the confirmation of the same being a prolongation of the same proceedings does not necessarily require his presence. It is submitted that he surrendered himself before this Court when he was granted interim relief and it was not necessary that he should be present on every date of bearing. Regarding the Federal Court Authority on which reliance has been placed it is submitted that in that case the petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the order of the High Court made on appeal by the Provincial Government against his acquittal by the Sessions Judge and that the petitioner was on bail pending appeal against his acquittal but he did not surrender himself to the authorities on conviction by the High Court. The Federal Court, therefore, declined to act in aid of the petitioner who was held to be a fugitive from justice and it was for that reason that his petition was dismissed and it was held that it was an essential condition for the administration of justice, in a case affecting an individual or individuals, that the persons concerned should submit to the due process of justice.
8. I agree with learned counsel for the petitioners. The authority cited is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has not been able to show any authority to me in which it is laid down that this Court is bound to dismiss a petition for anticipatory bail when although a person may have surrendered to the Court at the time of the grant of interim relief, he was not present at the time of confirmation of the same. In my opinion it is in the discretion of the Court to insist on the presence of a person at the time of confirmation of anticipatory bail if that person had surrendered and submitted himself before the Court when interim relief was granted to him. This would obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of each and every case. In the present case Sahibzada Ahmed Reza Khan Qasuri petitioner did submit and surrender himself before this Court when interim relief was granted to him and I do not find that his presence is necessary today when I am considering the confir--mation of the same.
9. I have already noted above that learned Assistant Advocate-General has not satisfied me as to why the petitioner had not been arrested between the dates of the completion of investigation against them and the dates of filing the present petitions. It is indeed correct that Criminal Procedure Code bas not fixed any time limit for conducting investigation into a criminal offence.
But it does not mean that after apparent completion of investiga--petition into a criminal offence, the investigating agency should fall asleep o keep a case registered against an accused person dormant for no apparent reason in order to receive It at will. In the light of what has been discussed in paras. 5 and 6 above, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case in which interim pre- arrest bail already granted to the petitioners should be confirmed, and I order accordingly.
The petition stands disposed of.