1. Adeel Akhtar, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Hanif respondents were granted pre-arrest bail vide order dated 10-1-1996 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi, while Muhammad Suleman, Muhammad Ali and Ihsan-ul-Haq co-accused were refused bail vide the same order, in case F.I.R. No,333 of 1995 dated 11-11-1995 under sections 337-F(vi)/337A(i)/302/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Mitru on the statement of Muhammad Abbas for having caused injuries to Ali Muhammad his father.
2. 2.Feeling aggrieved Muhammad Abbas complainant filed this petition seeking cancellation of bail.
3. Allegation against the respondents, as narrated in the F.I.R., is that on 10-11-1995 at 6.30 a.m. the respondents armed with Sotas in prosecution of common object of the unlawful assembly trespassed into the house of the complainant in Chak No,69/WB and inflicted injuries on the person of Ali Muhammad, who died on 27-11-1995.
4. 3.As per medical evidence Ali Muhammad deceased sustained six injuries on his person out of which injuries Nos.4, 5 and 6 are contusion marks on the right arm, left and right sides of the buttocks. Out of injuries Nos.1, 2 and 3, the clavicle bone was found fractured under injury No,1 and these three injuries were attributed to Muhammad Ali, Muhammad Suleman and Ihsan-ul-Haq co- accused of the respondents whose bail was refused on 10-1-1996. Out of the respondents Muhammad Hanif is attributed Lalkara while Adeel Akhtar was attributed injury No,4 and Muhammad Aslam, an injury on the right side of the chest. The deceased was admitted in the hospital where he remained for three days, from where he was shifted to District Headquarters Hospital, Vehari, where he underwent operation and lateron developed gangrene in his large intestine. On 27-11-1995 he developed dysentery and due to cardiac arrest died in the hospital on 27-11-1995 at 7.45 p.m. The doctor has opined that injuries Nos.1 and 2 were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The deceased was 75 years old and had developed complications.
5. 4.In the course of investigation of the case, on 12-11-1995 Adeel Akhtar got his statement recorded and a cross-version was placed before the police in support whereof Zahida Parveen, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Arshad were examined as witnesses. Adeel Akhtar was found to have three injuries on his person while Zahida Parveen also carried three injuries. The police, on 26-6-1996, prepared report under section 173, Cr.P.C. From the complainant side Ghulam Muhammad, Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Khursheed were found guilty, therefore, were challaned under section 337-A(ii)/34, P.P.C. while Ali Muhammad, Muhammad Akbar and Jan Muhammad were declared innocent. On the other hand the respondents were challaned alongwith Muhammad Saleem and Ihsan-ul-Haq under section 337-F(vi)/34, P.P.C. while Ali Muhammad co-accused was found innocent and discharged. Section 302/452/148/149, P.P.C. were found to have not been established in the course of investigation and there being no evidence on record to substantiate these offences, the same were deleted.
6. 5.Record has been perused and arguments heard. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner submits that on 10-1-1996 when the pre-arrest bail of the respondents was confirmed, section 302/452, P.P.C. stood added as death of the deceased had occurred on 27-11-1995 and that the same fact is established from the incomplete challan prepared by the Investigating Officer on 19-1- 1996; that in such a case the accused/respondents were not entitled to the concession of confirmation of pre-arrest interim bail and prays that the order dated 10-1-1996 be recalled.
7. 6.Learned counsel for the respondents while controverting these arguments has submitted that the injuries on the person of Adeel Akhtar and Zahida Parveen have not been explained by the complainant party; they have suppressed important piece of evidence and have not come to the Court with clean hands. Further submits that version of the respondents has been upheld and the complainant party stands equally challaned on the same footing before the Court of law. Also submits that no doubt the deceased died on 27-11-1995 and sections 302/452, P.P.C. stood added on the day on which pre-arrest bail of the respondents was confirmed, yet mere addition of an offence is no ground for refusal or grant of bail unless and until it is seen that there was material substance and the said offence prima facie proved to connect the accused with the crime. In the present circumstances, the doctor has opined that none of the injuries were sufficient to cause death. Injuries Nos.1, 2 and 3 were serious in nature which were specifically attributed to the co- accused of the respondents and it was also case of the prosecution that the deceased developed complications who died of cardiac arrest. It is not denied that both the parties stand challaned and both the versions are before the Court. The complainant party is also on bail. It is yet to be determined which party is the aggressor and there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is a case of further inquiry. Further, there is no evidence on record to establish that the respondents have misused the concession of bail granted to them by the subordinate Court. The documents produced by learned counsel for the parties have been perused and placed on the record of this file. I do not consider it a fit case for recalling the order dated 10-1-1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and this petition being without force is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.