RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID, J. - A case under Sections 365, 342, 337-A(i), 337-L(ii), 337-F(iii), PPC is registered against the petitioners at Police Station, City Chiniot, District Jhang ride F.I.R. No. 75, dated 23.2.1999 on the complaint of Ch. Bashir Ahmad, Advocate for threatening him and assaulting his brother Ahmad Yousaf, who had suffered 8 injuries during the transaction.
2. The petitioners applied for pre-arrest bails in the Court of Ch. Muhammad Akram, Special Judge, Special Court Anti-Terrorist (Punjab), Faisalabad, but withdrew the same on 5.3.1999 on the ground that provisions of Section 365, PPC have since been dropped and that the petitioners would like to avail the remedy in the Sessions Court. The application for pre-arrest bails was dismissed by the learned Special Judge, Faisalabad after granting the petitioners protective bail for three days, to enable them to appear in the Court concerned. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for bail before arrest in the Sessions Court, which came up for hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot, but the petitioners absented from the aforesaid Court on the date of hearing i.e. On 18.3.1999 and their bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of their learned counsel. Yet another attempt was made by the petitioners to earn the pre-arrest bail from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot by making a fresh petition on the same day, but it was dismissed vide detailed order recorded by the Court concerned. It was observed by the Court that though provisions under Section 365, PPC have been deleted, but no explanation has been given as to why the petitioners absented on the previous date of hearing and under what circumstances their petition was withdrawn. It was also observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that pre-arrest bail being a discretionary measure, was misused by the petitioners who were getting its hearing postponed on one pretext or the other and as such were playing game of hide and seek with the Court of law. On occasions, they did not appear and also contended that since they have to move a transfer application against the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, the matter be adjourned; that after getting such adjournments, no such application was ever made nor did they attend the Court, which resulted into dismissal of their petition for pre-arrest bail.
3. Instead of surrendering to the custody of the Court, the petitioners have moved this petition for pre-arrest bails on the ground that complainant being an Advocate is creating harassment and terror for the petitioners on account of his status in the Bar; that in fact the complainant and his brother were aggressors as they had opened attack on the petitioners, while they were in their house.
4. It was also contended that petitioners have been implicated in this case falsely with interior motive as the complainant being a friend of the late father of the petitioners Muhammad Rafique wanted to grab their property and as such was harassing them without any rhyme and reason.
5. Lastly it was contended that Mst. Shazia being woman has been falsely implicated although she was beaten during the alleged occurrence and had suffered 7 injuries on her person. Likewise Ghulam Abbas was not the resident of the place of occurrence and being brother of Mst. Shazia was later on falsely implicated in this case though not name in the F.I.R.
6. The complainant who was present in the Court contended through his counsel that he was the friend of Muhammad Rafiq i.e. Father of Muhammad Shafique petitioner, but after his death Muhammad Shafique wanted to grab the property of his deceased father and also intended to deprive the widows of the deceased of their share in the inheritance. It was also contended on behalf of the complainant that he was professionally engaged as an Advocate by the widow of the deceased to pursue the murder case in which Muhammad Shafique was the main culprit for killing his father namely Muhammad Rafiq. Feeling aggrieved of the engagement of the complainant as counsel for the opposite party, the petitioner allegedly opened attack on him and his brother with the help of his co-petitioners, which resulted into injuries to Ahmad Yousaf PW as stated above. It was also contended that petitioners were avoiding their arrest by misusing the provisions of Section 498, Cr.P.C, by seeking pre-arrest bails by moving different applications but later on absenting from the Courts.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that Muhammad Shafique and Ghulam Abbas petitioners are assigned specific role for opening attack on injured PW Ahmad Yousaf, a brother of Ch. Bashir Advocate/complainant. In such a situation and keeping in view their past conduct in moving different applications for pre-arrest bail and after dismissal of those petitions without surrendering to the Court concerned, they being fugitives from law would have no case for confirmation of pre-arrest bails. The bail petition to their extent namely Muhammad Shafiq and Ghulam Abbas is, therefore, dismissed and interim pre-arrest to them are recalled. So far as.
Mst. Shazia is concerned, she being a woman falls within the proviso and being injured herself during the transaction would be entitled to confirmation of bail as she has already joined the investigation and has assured to continue joining investigation as and when required by the police.
The bail application to her extent is allowed and the interim bail granted to her is confirmed with the direction that she shall appear before the Investigating Officer, when ever summoned in writing by him in connection with the investigation of this case.