MUHAMMAD NASEEM CHAUDHRI, J. - Different co-accused of Haji Umar Hayat and Umar Draz respondents-accused, while armed with lethal weapons, are said to have caused the intentional murder of Sardara and Allah Yar and made the murderous assault upon Ashraf and Falak Sher PWs. FIR No. 433, dated 31.12.1995 stands registered at Police Station Lalian, District Jhang under Sections 302, 324,148/149,109 PPC. The cause of occurrence is stated to be that there was litigation between Umar Draz respondent-accused and one Mian Khan who had become a fugitive of law and the assailants suspected that the complainant party helped him (Mian Khan). It is narrated in the FIR that the plan in the matter was chalked by Haji Umar Hayat and his son Umar Draz respondents-accused about the occurrence regarding which Nazir and Ashraf PWs had intimated.
Them, but they (complainant party) did not give importance to the same. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chihiot admitted the respondent-accused to prearrest bail and the complainant has filed this petition for the cancellation of the same.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record before me. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant is that both Haji Umar Hayat and his son Umar Draz respondents-accused did not join the investigation for a considerable time and as such they stand connected with the occurrence. According to him due to the litigation between Haji Umar Draz respondent and Mian Khan the occurrence has taken place and that they are not entitled to enjoy the extra-ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. I do not agree with him. At this stage it would be proper to express that the learned Assistant Advocate General supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for both the respondents-accused has rightly canvassed that with the material collected by the prosecution to be produced during the occurrence the involvement of the respondents-accused is to be viewed with caution. About the pendency of the litigation between Mian Khan on the one side and Haji Umar Hayat and Umar Draz respondents-accused on the other side no documentary material has been collected during the investigation. The mere verbal statements of the PWs may not muster the desired defect even during the trial. This is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect of the matter is that Nazir and Ashraf PWs intimated Yara complainant about the plan chalked by the respondents-accused about the occurrence. There is general type of narration in the FIR without containing the place where the plan was chalked out and the reason about the presence of the aforesaid PWs at that time. Without prejudice I am tempted to express that prima facie such an allegation does not sound to the reason and I am tempted to express that it may be an overdoing on the part of the Police Officer. Furthermore there is no material before this Court that the respondents-accused have misused the concession of bail or have tampered the prosecution evidence and that there is apprehension of their abscondence. It was the duty of the Investigating Officer to summon the accused under rule 2, chapter XXV of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 through the written direction according to Form No. 25.2(1). It is the natural conduct of an accused not to go to the police to join the investigation as he has to save his akin. As such this assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has failed to touch my sense of appreciation. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that both Haji Umar Hayat and his son Umar Draz respondents-accused have rightly been allowed the concession of bail- before arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and there is no ground for the cancellation of the said order.
3. I, therefore, dismiss this petition.