' About one month after his arrest in case F.I.R. No,26, dated 3-2-1993 of Police Station Cautt.
Sargodha, which had been registered for the alleged commission of an offence punishable under section 324/34, P.P.C., Qaisar Hayat respondent was released on bail by a learned Additional Sessions Judge of Sargodha on 22-3-1993. Nazir complainant has filed this petition seeking recall of the said bail.
2. Notice was issued to the respondent on 4-4-1993 which was served on him on 21-4-1993 for his appearance before this Court on 25-4-1993. Despite having personally accepted service, the respondent did not enter appearance on the said date. Consequently, warrants were issued for his arrest and production before this Court on 16-5-1993. In obedience to these warrants, the respondent was produced on the said date when he submitted that a son of his had died on 24-4- 1993 and it was for this reason that he could not appear before this Court on the earlier date of hearing i,e. On 25-4-1993. He also produced the death certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Sargodha, regarding the death of his son on the abovementioned date. I directed his immediate release subject to his furnishing a personal bond to the satisfaction of O.S.D.(J.) of this Court but while doing so, I directed the Police Officer then present in Court to verify the death of the respondent's son as claimed by him and to submit his report on the next date then fixed.
3. The case then came up for hearing on 22-5-1993 when it was reported by the S.H.O. Of Police Station Cantt. Sargodha, that the certificate submitted by the respondent regarding the death of his son was the correct copy of the original record maintained with the Municipal Corporation, Sargodha.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant, however, submitted that the entry in question had been maliciously manoeuvred by the respondent in the Municipal records. He contended that a newly-born son of the respondent had died a few hours after his birth but this had happened on 1- 4-1993 and not on 24-4-1993, as claimed by the respondent. He had added that the respondent was a resident of Liaqat Colony falling within the area of Sargodha Cantonment Board where the death of his child had also occurred and that the said death should, therefore, ordinarily have been reported with the Cantonment Board and not with the Municipal Corporation. He claimed that the respondent had manoeuvred a false entry in the Municipal Corporation record through the intervention of a Councillor of Municipal Corporation, namely, Mansoor Asad Punnu, who was a relative of the respondent. He placed on record affidavits of Tauqeer Hayat, Anwar Baig, Muhammad Bashir and Sultan Khan who had deposed that the child of Tauqeer Hayat respondent had died on 1-4-1993; his funeral prayers had been led by Altaf Hussain, the Imam of Bilal Mosque of Liaqat Colony and that the said child had been buried at about 8-30 p.m. On 1-4-1993 in the graveyard of Liaqat Colony of Sargodha. It had been further deposed through these affidavits that the said child had been born at about 6-00/7-00 a.m. On 1-4-1993 and one Mst. Fazlan Bibi of Liaqat Colony was the mid-wife who had delivered the said child.
5. Confronted with this position, I recorded the statement of Qaisar Hayat respondent on oath. He stuck to the position aiready taken up by him and denied that his child had died on 1-4-1993. He claimed that it was his father who was residing in Liaqat Colony of Sargodha Cantt., but he himself was residing in Islampura which fell within the Municipal Limits of Sargodha Corporation.
6. I do not consider it proper to give any finding about the date of the birth of the respondent's child. Nevertheless, the claim of the respondent, at least for the purpose of present proceedings, does not inspire confidence. In C.M. No,553 of 1993 which he had submitted in Writ Petition No,2225 of 1993, he had described himself as being a resident of Liaqat Colony of Sargodha Cantt. Even in his petition for bail submitted in the Court of Session, he had stated to be a resident of Liaqat Colony of Sargodha Cantt. The electoral rolls of the area also declared him to be a resident of Liaqat Colony and not of Islampura. In the bail bonds submitted by him before the O.S.D.(J.) of this Court on 25-4-1993, he had described himself as a resident of Liaqat Colony, Sargodha. The claim of the respondent that he was a resident of 1 slampura, does not appear, at least prima facie, to be a correct version, which also casts doubt about the veracity of the entry made in the records of Municipal Corporation, Sargodha.
7. The case was then adjourned for 23-5-1993 as the Court time was over by the time the statement of the respondent had been recorded.
8. On the said date, the respondent appeared before me and gave an impression of being in an extremely bad state of health. He claimed a severe pain in his kidney and stated before me that he had come to attend the Court from Sargodha in an ambulance. The impression created by the respondent on my mind, once again, alarmed me and I directed that he be immediately taken to General Hospital, Lahore, for his treatment and check-up. I further ordered that he be treated by Dr. Farrukh Ahmad Khan, the Professor of Urology and that the said doctor shall also send a report to this Court about the health of the respondent.
9. The report was submitted on 24-5-1993 by the Medical Superintendent of General Hospital, Lahore. It had been stated that Professor Farrukh Ahmad Khan had gone abroad and was not available and in his absence, Dr. Muhammad Nawaz Chughtai, the Assistant Professor of Urology had examined Qaisar Hayat, respondent. The said doctor reported that he had carried out a complete examination of Qaisar Hayat, including taking of renal ultrasound, X-Ray of abdomen and pelvis, complete examination of blood, urine, blood urea and serum etc. And that in his opinion, the respondent did not seem to have any renal pain and did not need hospitalization.
10. The respondent and his learned counsel were confronted with this report and the both had nothing to say about this report. The learned counsel for the respondent in fact stated that he was embarrassed by the conduct of the respondent.
11. This now brings me to the merits of the present case.
12. It had been alleged through the aforesaid F.I.R. That the respondent was a Badmash who used to take Jagga tax from the shopkeepers of the area; that a son of the complainant had refused to pay Jagga Tax and had even insulted the respondent and that it was on account of this grievance that the respondent came to the complainant's shop, the next day and resorted to indiscriminate firing. The complainant had saved himself by hiding inside his shop.
13. It is true that the firing attributed to the respondent was ineffective but the allegations levelled against the respondent and the reason mentioned for the respondent's resorting to this firing, were not the kind of conduct which could have evoked any sympathy for the respondent.
14. His conduct before this Court has been more than dubious. He had twice misled this Court by making assertions which were false. This conduct demonstrated by the respondent, is by itself sufficient to deprive him of any benefit of the concession of bail.
15. Consequently, this, petition is allowed and the to the respondent by a learned Additional Sessions Judge of Sargodha through his order, dated 22-3-1993 in case F.I.R. No,26/93 of Police Station Cantt., Sargodha, is recalled.
Bail cancelled.