KHALIL UR REHMAN RAMDAY, J.- As per F.I.R.No.219/93, dated 5.6.1993 of Police Station, Kahna of District Lahore, Farmaish Ali alias Fishu respondent was alleged to have fired a shot with his.12 bore gun at Murad Ali complainant which, however, missed whereafter, Farmaish respondent fired a shot at the brother of the complainant, namely, Muhammad Arif causing injuries on the person of the said Arif spreading over an area from his face down to his legs. Farmaish respondent disappeared thereafter and remained unavailable to the police till 29.8.1993 i.e. For almost three months whereafter, he was arrested.
2. He approached the Sessions Court at Lahore for his release on bail but his bail petition was dismissed on 21.11.1993 by a learned A.SJ. Of Lahore(Mr. Muhammad Nisar Khan) with the following observations:- "The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the injuries suffered by the victim are minor and does not cause the death of the victim. In this connection I have perused the pictorial sketch of injuries attached with the i.e. This reveals that the pellets of 12 bore gun have injured the victim from his shoulders to his knees profusely. The places of injuries are on the vital parts of the. It was a sheet luck that he was not killed otherwise, even if a lay man on guess from this pictorial that prima facia the petitioner had an intention kill. A perusal of record shows that the petitioner is already involved in 8 other cases including U/S PPC. In the present case, he also remained fugitive from law for about two months. This being the position, I do not find it a fit case for bail and reject the same."
3. Within about a month of the above-mentioned order, the same learned A.SJ. Was approached afresh for the release of Farmaish respondent on bail who was, this time, allowed bail by the same learned A.SJ. Through an order dated 29.12.1993 for the following reasons:- "Earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by me when the case was at the initial stages. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner has applied for bail on the ground of delay in the trial. I have perused the Judl file.. The accused was arrested on 29.8.93, but since When not a single witness has been, recorded by the trial court. The case is not likely to conclude in the near future.
The injuries on the person of the victim have not been declared grievous. He is behind the bar for the last about four months. In such circumstances, his further detention will amount to punishment which is against the spirit of law. I, therefore, allow the petitioner bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with new surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of this Court".
4. It was in these circumstances, that the present petition seeking cancellation of this to Farmaish respondent, has been moved before this court.
5. I issued notice to the said respondent on 29.1.1994 for 13.2.1994. The notice, however, remained un-answered and fresh notices were directed to be issued on 13.2.1994 for 27.2.1994. These notices also remained unfruitful and in view of the reports submitted by the Process Server which indicated that the respondent wa intentionally avoiding service, I issued warrants on 27.2.1994 for his arrest and consequent production before this court on 19.3.1993, on which date, it was reported that the warrants could not be executed on account of the nonavailability of the respondent. I then summoned the S.P. On 20.3.1994 who submitted that he had constituted a team under the supervision of Muhammad Muneer Ahmad D.S.P., Kot Lakhpat, to ensure execution of the warrants issued by this Court. It is in these circumstances, that the presence and appearance of Farmaish respondent could be secured by me.
6. Farmaish respondent who is present in custody has been asked as to whether he wants time to engage the services of some learned counsel to represent him before this Court to which he submitted that he does not wish to engage any counsel and that he has nothing to say in his defence.
7. The D.S.P, has placed before me a list of eleven cases including a case of murder and another case of attempted murder in which the respondent is and has been involved. It was only in the murder case that he was acquitted by the learned trial Court in July, 1992 and in all other ten cases, Farmaish respondent is an absconder from the learned trial Courts.
8. In the present case, the respondent was specifically nominated as the person who, armed with a.12 bore gun had fired at Murad complainant and having missed him, then fired a shot at the complainant's brother, namely, Muhammad Arif and this caused i.e-arm injuries on the person of Arif P.W. As has been noticed above, he disappeared after this occurrence and it was after almost three months that he could be arrested. From the above re-production of the two orders passed by the learned A.SJ. Within a span of about one month, it would appear that he dismissed the respondent's bail plea on 21.11.1993 by holding that pellets cf 12 bore gun had injured the victim from his shoulders to his knees profusely; that the places of injuries were 0n the vital parts of the body and it was sheer luck that the victim did not get killed; that the injuries indicated the respondent's intention to kill the victim and that the accused in question was already involved in eight other cases and had remained a fugitive from law for about two months even in the present case. The tables seem to have got turned after about one month and the learned A.S.J. Admitted the present respondent to bail on the ground that ever-since his arrest on 29.8.1993, not a single prosecution witness had been examined by the learned trial Court for about four months i.e. Till 29.12.1993; that the injuries on the person of the victim had not been declared grievous and in the circumstances, the accused who was behind bars for the last about four months, desed to be admitted to bail.
9. This appears to be an exercise of jurisdiction which is not only against law but is also against all norms of propriety and justice. Heavens had not fallen in the one month which had intervened between the dismissal of the respondent's bail plea by the learned A.S J. And the acceptance of his bail petition by the same learned A.S.J., who a month earlier had thought that the i.e-arm injuries caused by the present respondent to the victim spreading from his shoulders down to his knees, were a case of the victim being injured profusely which injuries were on vital parts of the body and it was sheer luck of the victim that he did not get killed and a month later, changed his opinion to say that the said injuries were not grievous. The jurisdiction exercised by the learned A.S J., to say the least, appears to be a reckless and perverse exercise of power.
10. In view of all that has been noticed above, the to Farmaish respondent through the above- mentioned order dated 29.12.1993 of a learned A.S J. Of Lahore is re-called.
11. He is present in custody in pursuance of the warrants issued by me. From the report submitted by the D.S.P, it appears that the non-bailable warrants had been issued against him in at least nine other cases. He shall be taken back and treated in accordance with law.
12. Copies of this order shall be sent to Ch. Muhammad Ismail, Magistrate Section 30, Lahore, Mr. Sarwar Noor, Judicial Magistrate, Lahore and Rana Muhammad Tahir, M.I.C. Lahore in whose Courts the criminal cases against Farmaish respondent are pending and from whose Courts, the said respondent is missing.
13. The above observations made by me about the conduct of the learned A.S J. In the dismissal and the subsequent grant of bail to the present respondent, shall be placed on the A.C.R of the said learned A.S J. And shall also be brought to the notice of my learned brother, who is the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge for Lahore. These observations shall not be conveyed to the said learned A.S.J.