' This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 6-1-1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore whereby the application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Moved by Dr. Aftab Ahmad complainant was accepted and the post-arrest bail allowed to Javaid Iqbal and Muntazir Hussain petitioners by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Lahore vide order, dated 30-6- 1997 was cancelled.
2. The present petition was initially moved under section 498, Cr.P.C. For grant of pre-arrest bail but after hearing preliminary arguments, my learned brother Sajjad Ahmad Sipra, J. In view of the dictum laid down in the case reported as Muhammad Malik Pervaiz v. State 1968 PCr.LJ 196 held that the remedy of the petitioners lies under provisional jurisdiction and accordingly the present petition was treated as criminal revision and registered accordingly.
3. Briefly the facts of the case are that a case F.I.R. No,,408 of 1997, dated 13-6-1997, under section 324/34, P.P.C. Stands registered with Police Station Shandara, Lahore at the instance of Ikram-ul- Haq. It was stated, inter aim, that the complainant along with Dr. Aftab Ahmad while crossing Ravi Bridge near Saggian were cautioned to halt the car by the police officials on duty including the petitioners. The doctor who was on the wheel instead of stopping the car returned the same. They heard reports of firing and the complainant saw that the doctor started bleeding. They got down of the vehicle and saw that two of the tires had been burst. In the meanwhile a police car approached them entreating that out of misconception firing was opened for which they should be forgiven. It has also been stated that the complainant had asked the doctor to stop the car but he did not accede to the same. The petitioners were arrested in this case but were admitted to bail by the learned Magistrate vide order, dated 30-6-1997. Against the said order, the complainant moved an application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Which was accepted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order, dated 6-1-1998 and the bail granted to the petitioners was recalled and cancelled.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Magistrate has exercised his discretion validly and assigned cogent reasons for the same. It has been observed by the learned Magistrate that there was no prima facie case made out against the petitioners under section 324, P.P.C.; that there was no intention with the petitioners to have attacked or killed Dr. Aftab, the injured P.W. Since the said order did not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in recalling the bail under section 497, Cr.P.C. It has further been argued that the observation made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the petitioners exceeded their right and as such their action of resorting to firing amounted to an offence under section 324, P.P.C. Is wholly untenable and cannot be sustained under the law. The petitioners in their best judgment were justified in presuming that the complainant and his companion were suspicious persons when at mid night the car was not stopped and turned back by disobeying the caution of halt given to them by the police party who were in uniform and had been posted there to check the suspicious vehicles. The conduct of the injured P.W., inter alia, created an impression that there was some desperadoes sitting in the car who were avoiding checking intentionally. The intention of the police party or for that matter the petitioners was to burst the tires to stop the vehicle which in fact had been burst but incidentally the bullet hit the driver i,e, Dr. Aftab. No offence as such is, therefore, made out under section 324, P.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has contested and refuted the pleas. Raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. According to him there was no justification whatsoever to start firing.
The police party at the best could have chased the car and apprehended the persons travelling in the car. Their action is not protected by section 46, Cr.P.C., as such, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in cancelling the bail allowed to them by the learned Magistrate.
6. I have considered the arguments and also gone through the orders pasted by the learned Courts below as well as other relevant material. ' It is an admitted fact that the police contingent had been deployed at the Ravi Bridge to check the vehicles. If at night a vehicle is not topped even on the caution given by the police party, then naturally the apprehension would be that the riders of the vehicle were avoiding checking. Not only that the car in the instant case took a "U" turn and tried to escape from the checking but also keeping in view the prevailing condition of law and order and frequent incidents of terrorism it could be genuinely apprehended by the police party that some desperadoes were trying to escape. They chased the vehicle, burst the tires and incidentally hit the complainant. May be the act of the petitioners can be considered as rash or negligent but there is no material at all to infer that the petitioners intended to commit murder or they resorted to firing to kill the complainant or the driver i,e, the injured P.W.
7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either party, I am of the view that the order granting bail to the petitioners did not suffer from any such illegality which called for interference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted, the order, dated 6-1-1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore is set aside on account of suffering from illegality and consequently, the order, dated 30-6- 1997 passed by the learned Magistrate stands revived. 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.