' The petition has been submitted for cancellation of bail allowed to the respondents who were accused in case F.I.R. No,273 of 1996, dated 26-12-1996, under section 302/324/148/149/337- H(ii)/109, P.P.C. Police Station Machhiwal, District Vehari.
2. The case was registered against 25 persons with the allegations that the accused attacked the complainant party while they were picking cotton from their fields in Chak No,6/WB, Police Station Machhiwal, at about 3-00 p.m. On 26-12-1996. Bashir Ahmad allegedly gave a blow to the head of Mst. Sayani Bibi, wife of the complainant, while the other accused gave blows to her as well as other members of the complainant party.
3. Respondents Nos.1 to 6 was well as a number of their co-accused submitted applications under section 498, Cr.P.C. For grant of pre-arrest bail and the concession was conferred on the respondents by separate orders, dated 22-1-1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Vehari.
4. Aggrieved of the orders, dated 22-1-1997, all of which are in the same terms present petition was submitted in which notice to the respondents was issued on 23-2-1997. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard in the matter.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that concession of bail in anticipation of arrest was an extraordinary concession and could be conferred on a person accused of non-bailable criminal offence in rare circumstances. It was not the position in the present case and the bail was allowed to the respondents only on the ground that the learned counsel for the complainant had given a concession to the accused, which, however, was not authorised by the complainant. It was submitted that learned Sessions Judge ought to have considered the merits of cases of applicants before him and concession of pre-arrest bail could have been granted only after having concluded that involvement of the applicants/respondents was motivated or the case against them was false and since this was not done, the impugned order was liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the respondents were either old persons or were females and they had not caused any injury to the deceased, and the learned Sessions Judge keeping in view this factor granted bail before arrest to the respondents justifiably and that the impugned order was not violative of any principle of law. It was submitted that the learned counsel for the complainant was a duly authorised agent of the complainant and he could have given such concession as was done by him.
6. The respondents are present in Court. Three of them are females and appear to be aged. Two of other persons are also quite old persons. According to the record, the fatal injury on the person of Mst. Sayani (deceased) was attributed to a co-accused of the respordents/accused. They had not caused any injury to the deceased though some of their co-accused were alleged to have given stick blows to her. The complainant has chosen to involve as many as 25 persons in the case and in all probability, the net was thrown too wide which reacts on the'bona fides of the complainant.
Though the course adopted by the learned lower Court in disposing of the applications before him was subjective, yet for the reasons that the case of the respondents/accused was otherwise that of I A grant of bail, the ing orders are not being interfered with.
7. The application is rejected.
Application rejected.