' A case under section 337-L(ii)/ C 337-F(iii)/34, P.P.C. Was registered against the petitioner and others on the ground that they caused injuries to Lai Din i,e, the complainant. According to the petitioner gave a 'Lathi' blow to the aforesaid injured person which was declared GhayrJaifah Mutalahimah.
2. The petitioner applied for pre-arrest bail which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide fits order, dated 29-9-1998. Instead of surrendering to the custody of the Court, the petitioner managed to escape and moved this petition for pre-arrest bail before this Court on the ground that there was some money dispute between the parties and that the maximum punishment for the offence was three years and as such, the case did not fall within the prohibitory clause so as to deny the bail to the petitioners. It was also contended that one of the eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Siddique had allegedly failed to support the prosecution version as according to aim, he was not present at the spot. In this respect, it was also contended that the aforesaid eye-witness had tendered an affidavit to that effect before the Ilaqa Magistrate.
3. During the hearing of this petition, the Investigating Officer denied that any such affidavit was ever produced before him nor Muhammad Siddique appeared to make the statement that he had given any affidavit before the Ilaqa Magistrate that he had not seen the occurrence. However, the aforesaid witness was not produced even in this Court to show that actually he had given any affidavit that he had not seen the occurrence although an opportunity to that effect was given to the petitioner. It, therefore, follows that the petitioner took up a false plea to earn the interim bail from this Court on the pretext that one of the eye-witnesses did not support the case but failed to substantiate by producing the aforesaid witness or his affidavit in original. It is immaterial in a pre- arrest bail petition that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. There is nothing on record to show that there was any enmity between the parties so as to maliciously involve the petitioner in this case. A reference was, however, made to a photo copy of some agreement between Lal Din complainant and Jumma son of Ibrahim i,e, the petitioner showing that the former had taken a loan of Rs,80,000 from the latter which was promised to be re-paid by 30-12-1997.
However, to avoid the aforesaid payment, the present case was ditegedly got registered. This is a plea which may be taken by the petitioner before the police during the investigation which is yet in progress. Thus, there is no mala fide on the part of the prosecution or on the part of the complainant, therefore, the petitioner has no case for pre-arrest bail. The petition is accordingly dismissed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner is withdrawn. The investigation to take its usual course.