' The remaining petitioners have not turned up. Learned counsel for the petitioners has requested from the bar for condonation of their absence for the reason that the village of the said petitioners was inundated with flood. Means of communication connecting the village with Lahore or any other town have been disrupted altogether. The request is allowed.
2. Together with 8 others, the petitioners have been charged for the offences of rioting, murderous assault and theft under section 307/379/148/149, P. P. C. The First Information Report lodged by Allah Yar an eye-witness in the case alleges that the parties had a dispute over possession of land, The petitioners and their co-accused all of whom excepting one, namely Manzoor who had a sota in his hand, armed with rifles, guns etc. Marched at the dera of the complainant. Nazir fired at Zulqarnain, a nephew of the complainant with revolver in his hand hitting him in the thigh. The remaining accused had resorted to indiscriminate firing. The accused had also taken away a couple of bullocks of the complainant. The petitioners had in the first instance applied before learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura for grant of anticipatory bail. The application was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge by means of order dated the 24th of June 1978.
3. Mr. A. N. K. Niazi, Deputy Superintendent Police, Sheikhupura who is supervising the investigation is present with record. He says that all the four petitioners were required to be arrested for the purposes of further investigation in the case.
4. Lengthy arguments were addressed in support of the application. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended vehemently that the instant case may be cited as a striking instance of usual tendency of exaggeration so as to rope in a large number of persons from the opposite side.
It is hard to believe that only one man on the complainant side should have received a single injury if a band of eleven persons had fired indiscriminately. On Medical Examination, Zulqarnain was found to have suffered an injury caused by a pellet shot which fact belied the allegation in the First Information Report that Nazir accused had fired at him with revolver in his hand. The injury suffered by Zulkarnain also did not satisfy requirements of section 307, P. P. C. The judgment in Abdur Rehman v. The State (1) was cited in this behalf. Allah Yar had himself produced a bullock before the police which falsifies the further allegation against the petitioners that they had taken away bullocks of the complainant. The case of the accused who had been attributed ineffective firing stands on different plane for the purposes of disposal of the instant application. This contention which called for comparatively more attention at this stage is supported by the judgments in Nazra and 5 others v. The State (2) and Sardar Muhammad and others v. The State (3). In both these cases accused whc were attributed ineffective firing were allowed bail before arrest. Remedy of pre-arrest bail which is no doubt an exceptional measure should not be withheld if possibility of false involvement of the accused which is likely to cause irreparable injury to his dignity, respect and reput- A ation is not ruled out. Accordingly, the application is accepted. Petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 5,000 (rupees five thousand) with two sureties with personal bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Resident Magistrate, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1964 B J 10 (2) 1977 P Cr. L J 480
(4) 1977 SCM R 326 {{FOOT NOTE}}