1. Muhammad Sabir Qureshi, the applicant herein has filed this application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Seeking cancellation of bail granted to the first two respondents. The Sessions Judge.
2. Karachi (South) had granted pre-arrest bail to them by his orders respectively passed by him on 3-7-1991 and 8-8-1991.
3. Facts relevant to the case briefly stated arc that on 19-5-1991 at 12-47 p.m. The applicant went to Police Station Resala and lodged a report. The report was recorded in the Station Diary as the police considered it to be report in respect of non-cognizance offence. It appears that later on a report was received from medical officer who reported that the injuries caused to applicant Muhammad Sabir Qureshi were not only grievous but also dangerous. On receipt of such report the police registered the F.I.R. On 11-6-1991 at 7-40 p.m. Under section 337-LI of the Qisas abd Diyat Ordinance, 1991.
4. Nadeem Ahmed the respondent No.1 herein filed an application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the Sessions Judge who allowed the application on 3-7-1991. Later on application for pre-arrest bail was filed on behalf of Muhammad Ayub the respondent No. 2 herein which was also allowed on 8- 8-1991. The present application is directed against the two orders mentioned hereinabove. .
5. Mr. MA. Kazi, Advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that the offence in this case will be punishable under section 337(vi) of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1991, which is punishable with ten years' sentence and 15% of the Diyat. According to him the Sessions Judge deviated from principle laid down in the judgments of superior Courts in respect of pre-arrest bail reported in PLD 1983 SC 82, 1983 SCMR 645 and PLD 1984 SC 195.
6. Mr. S. Mehmood Alam, Advocate for the first two respondents contends that the bail before arrest was granted to the respondents on 3-7-1991 and 8-8-1991 and since then respondents have not in any manner violated the concessions of bail granted to them. He further contended that the medical certificates are not clear and it is yet to be determined if the offence will fall either under section 337(vi) or 337-U of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1991. According to him no role has been assigned to respondent No.2 Muhammad Ayub in the F.I.R. Itself.
7. Mr. Habib-ur-Rasheed, Advocate appearing for the State contends that at present the only material available before this Court is the First Information Report and the Medical Certificates.
8. There are allegations against accused application against Muhammad Ayub.
9. The applicant in the report lodged by him did not mention that he had lost a tooth. He merely complained that on receipt of the injury blood started running from his mouth. Besides respondent Nadeem Ahmed was granted pre---arrest bail in July, 1991 while application for cancellation of bail has been filed A on 17-10-1991. By now the case has been sent up for trial where no progress has been made as yet as stated by Mr. M.A. Kazi, Advocate for the applicant. At this stage in view of the facts mentioned above I am not inclined to cancel the bail granted to the two respondents. This application is, therefore, rejected.
10. It will, however, be open to the trial Judge to consider cancellation of bail after recording of some evidence if such a request is made to him by the prosecution.
11. N.H.Q./M-1627/K