1. By this application the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.28/96 of Police Station Drakhan registered at the instance of complainant Ghulam Nabi. Complainant's report was initially entered in the Rozenamcha o: the police station on 17-4-1996 and subsequently on receipt of medical report about the injuries sustained by injured Muhammad Ramzan, aforesaid F.I.R. No.28/96 was registered incorporating complainant's said report as also the statement of injured Muhammad Ramzan.
2. According to the complainant's report excavation of watercourse over their land for the supply of water of the lands of Munawar A.I Isani had annoyed the applicant. On 17-4-1996 the complainant, his brother Abdul Wahid and one Shahmir were going to Rato-Regulator and on reaching near the place at about 9-30 in the morning, they saw the applicant inflicting Lathi blows to his brother Muhammad Ramzan. On seeing the complainant's party coming the applicant went away.
3. Muhammad Ramzan had sustained injuries and the complainant alongwith others brought him to the Police Station, Darkhan, where complainant's report was- entered in the daily diary and the injured was referred to hospital. Later on 8-5-1996 injured Muhammad Ramzan approached the police station, produced the medical certificate showing fracture of left arm and recorded the statement. As mentioned above, on the basis of the medical report, the said F.I.R. Was registered incorporating complainant's initial report and the statement of the injured.
4. The applicant immediately, applied to the Sessions Court, Shikarpur for pre-arrest bail and interim bail was granted to him on 9-5-1996 but his application was ultimately dismissed on 20-8-1996, whereupon the applicant has approached this Court.
5. Concession of pre-arrest bail is sought on the ground that the applicant is a respectable Zamindar of Shikarpur and due to family dispute and enmity with his brother Munawar A.I Issani, who is an influential Zamindar of the area, the applicant has been falsely involved in the present case so as to humiliate and insult him and to coerce him to settle the dispute on the terms of his brother. It is claimed that on the date of alleged incident, the applicant was admitted in Jinnah Hospital, Karachi and to this effect certificate had been produced before the Sessions Court, but, later, it is alleged, his brother Munawar-A.I Isani manipulated a conflicting report from that hospital.
6. The application is opposed by Mr. Khawaja Navid Ahmad and Mr. Suleman Habibullah, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the State respectively on several grounds. It is submitted that the applicant having been named in the F.I.R., and active role of inflicting Lathi blows to the injured assigned to him, no case for the grant of bail to him, muchless pre-arrest bail, is made out. It is next contended that the rules governing the grant of pre-arrest bail are different from those applicable to bail after arrest. Apart from the existence of conditions normally required for the grant of bail after arrest, the fore most condition for the grant of anticipatory bail is the existence of sufficient material to show ulterior motive on the part of police or the adversaries of the accused, to cause harassm ent or humiliation of the petitioner. Reference is made to the cases of Murad Khan v. Fazal-e-Subhan and another PLD 1983 SC 82 and Haji Gamun v. Muhammad Afzal and 2 others PLD 1991 Pesh.
54. In the former case the Hon'ble Judges after reviewing a number of cases on the point observed: "As already' observed, it has been reiterated by this Court in earlier noted cases that the condition of arrest being for ulterior motives, for example, that of humiliation and unjustified harassment is a necessary condition for pre-arrest bail. "
7. The bail is also opposed on the ground that in order to gain advantage and mislead the Court the applicant took the plea that on the day of the incident --he was admitted in Jinnah Hospital, Karachi, which plea stood falsified from the certificate issued by the hospital. It is therefore, submitted that the applicant having not come to the Court with clean hands was not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Support is sought from the cases of Shahadat A.I v.
8. Mubarak Shah and another PLD 1986 SC 347 and Muhammad Ayub v. Mst. Nasim Akhtar and another 1984 PCr.LJ 160.
9. The facts of the first case were that, the respondent in that case applied for pre-arrest bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, who without granting interim bail before arrest gave notice to the State. The respondent then, on the next day, filed another similar application before another Additional Sessions Judge stating therein that he had not filed any other application. On his second application he was granted interim bail before arrest. Later before the High Court too he made no mention of the first bail application. On the above facts the Supreme Court cancelled the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent. The relevant observation is as follows:--- "After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents, we consider that respondent No.1 has been guilty of suppression of material facts for which no plausible explanation is forthcoming. Such misrepresentation or suppression is likely to result in grave miscarriage of justice apart from its being open to great abuse by the parties. A person indulging in it cannot be allowed to reap its benefits or to enjoy its results."
10. "There is no doubt that the respondent deliberately tried to mislead all the Courts by her deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. She therefore, disentitled herself to this discretionary relief on this count too. "
11. There can be no cavil with the propositions that the rules governing the grant of pre-arrest bail are different from those applicable to bail after arrest and that an accused not coming to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. Applicant's case would, therefore, be examined keeping in view the rules laid down by the superior Courts for the grant of pre-arrest bail.
12. As mentioned earlier applicant's plea is that he has been falsely involved in the case by his brother Munawar A.I Isani with whom his relations are very strained. In this regard reference has been made to some pending suits involving the applicant, Munawar A.I Isani and their other family members. It is alleged that at the behest of one Mr. Ghazanfar Isani, a former D.I.-G. Police and one Mr. Iftikhar A.I Isani a serving D.I.-G. Police, the police is supporting the said Munawar A.I Isani against the applicant and in order to humiliate and harass the applicant have been making efforts to arrest him. Apart from these allegations, strained relations between the applicant and his brother Munawar A.I and complainant's party is apparent from the complainant's allegations in the F.I.R., where he has attributed the incident to the annoyance caused to the applicant by reason of the excavation of watercourse through complainant's land to that of Munawar A.I Isani.
13. Complainant's report of the incident was initially entered by the police on the Roznamcha on 17-4- 1996 and injured Muhammad Ramzan was referred to the doctor on the same date. After an unexplained delay of 18 days the said Muhammad Ramzan appeared at the police station with a medical certificate showing fracture of left arm and recorded his statement, which alongwith the complainant's initial report was incorporated in the F.I.R. In his statement Muhammad Ramzan made some material deviation from the initial report of the complainant. Firstly, he completely omitted reference to Munawar A.I Isani's lands and instead attributed the incident to his refusal to sell his land to the applicant. Secondly, while the complainant had named the applicant as the only accused, Muhammad Ramzan introduced the name of co-accused Muhammad Qasim, and thirdly, he shifted the place of incident from Rato-Regulator to his lands. It is significant that when the initial report was lodged by the complainant, Muhammad Ramzan was also present with him at the police station, as such, it appears that these deviations have been made with purpose.
14. As regards the allegation about applicant's plea of alibi being false it is true that the Registrar of Jinnah Hospital in his second certificate denied applicant's admission in the hospital and issuance of discharge certificate to him, however, in the certificate allegedly issued earlier the Registrar had confirmed applicant's admission in the hospital for treatment. The second certificate is attacked by the applicant on the ground that this was the result of manoeuvrings of Munawar A.I Isani who arranged the certificate through manipulation of hospital record and later got it produced before the trial Court through one Shaukat A.I, an employee of the Jinnah Hospital, who was taken by Munawar A.I specially from Karachi for the purpose. To substantiate his claim, list of the passengers travelling on P.I.A. Flight from Karachi to Moenjodaro on 2-7-1996 and those travelling from Sukkur to Karachi on 3-7-1996 has been filed to show that Munawar A.I Isani and the said Shaukat A.I travelled together from Karachi to Moenjodaro on 2-7-1996 and again from Sukkur to Karachi on 3- 7-1996.
15. Having regard to all the circumstances' in my view a case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant has been made out. As such, I allow his application and confirm the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant, on the same terms.
16. Observations made in this order are only tentative in nature and will have no bearing on the merits of the case.