' A case under secdons 324, 337-F(iv), 337-A(ii), 147, 148, P.P.C. Was registered against the respondent and others vide F.I.R. No,260, dated 24-4-1997 at Police Station, Civil Lines, Rawalpindi for an occurrence which took place at about 10-30 p.m. According to the F.I.R., the co-accused of the respondent while variously armed with weapons like Dandas and iron bars etc. Attacked the complainant Muhammad Rafiq and his two sons namely Wajid Rafiq and Aamer Rafiq. The complainant suffered 9 injuries and his sons Wajid Rafiq and Aamer Rafiq suffered 7 and 3 injuries respectively, during the transaction. It was added at the close of the F.I.R. That the entire transaction was completed at the instance of Abdul Qadir Shah respondent, who remained present at the spot and as such allegedly abetted the offences.
2. The respondent aforesaid applied for pre-arrest bail alongwith other 3 persons. His application was allowed and the interim bail granted to him was confirmed on the ground that no injury was attributed to him except that the occurrence had taken place at his instance. The other accused, who were assigned specific role of causing injuries were denied bail before arrest and the petition to their extent was dismissed.
3. This petition for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No,1 namely Abdul Qadir Shah was moved with the prayer that the provisions of section 109, P.P.C. Were not taken into consideration by the learned trial Court while admitting the respondent to pre-arrest bail. In this context it was alleged that he was the main person behind the whole occurrence, which was not only conspired but abetted by him. It was, therefore, alleged that the respondent was not entitled to bail before arrest particularly when no mala fide action on the part of the police was alleged even in the petition. Investigation in such a situation should have been allowed to take its usual course.
4. The learned counsel for the State contended that respondent was named in the F . I . R. And the occurrence took place at his instance to which he abetted and since there was no mala fide regarding the involvement of the petitioner, therefore, the learned trial Court should have been slow to accept the pre-arrest bail of the respondent particularly when he had yet to join the investigation. He however, agreed that there was no overt act on the part of respondent No,1 after earning pre-arrest bail and the respondent joined the investigation and has been challaned by the Investigating Agency. Hence there was no likelihood that he would influence the course of investigation.
5. After considering the above contentions I find that it was a case of further inquiry because of the fact that even according to the F.1.R the occurrence allegedly took place at the instance of respondent No, 1 . This fact can only be gone into on its merits during trial. The allegation that there was no averment in the petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. That proceedings against the respondents were mala fide or with ulterior motive are belied by the averments made in paragraph No,2 of the petition, which clearly makes such allegations. It is also contended in paragraph No,3 that the local police was allegedly in league with the complainant party and was out to arrest the respondent No,1 in order to bring humiliation to him. It is, thus, obvious that question of mala fide and ulterior motive on the part of the police was agitated in the petition itself and, therefore, the contention that this allegation was never made stands falsified by record. Even otherwise the respondent No,1 had no other role except that the occurrence took place at his instigation. He has already joined the investigation and the challan has been prepared against him. In such a situation, it will serve no purpose to withdraw the bail already granted to respondent No,1 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi particularly when there. Is no allegation on record to show that there is likelihood of his absconsion or to prevail upon the investigation.
6. The petition for cancellation of bail is dismissed.