' A case under section 452/337-F(v)/ 337-F(vi)/337-H(ii)/379/148/149, P.P.C. Is registered against the petitioners and others at Police Station, Mananwala District Sheikhupura vide F.I.R. No, 63 of 1999, dated 26-3-1999. According to the F.I.R., the petitioners while armed with hatchet, .12 bore gun, carbine and sota entered the house of the complainant and after threatening and causing injuries to Arif Hussain and Sardar Muhammad forcibly took after the dismissal of aforesaid bail petition by the Court below on the ground that the petitioners were below the age of 16 years and that no specific role was attributed to them and that rest of the accused were behind the bars. In addition to that, it was contended that the case against the petitioners was tainted with mala fide on the part of the police. It was also contended that the bona fide of the medico-legal reports about the injured persons was challenged for which a Board was constituted by the District Magistrate, Sheikhupura for the reexamination of the injured P.Ws. However, the Special Board also came to the conclusion that the medico-legal reports of the injured persons, given earlier by the Medical Officer, were correct and as such, were confirmed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that one of the petitioners namely Arshad alias Jhola was declared innocent during the investigation of the police and as such, he had a case of further enquiry. About rest of the petitioners, it was contended that no specific role was attributed to them and that they being members of family of the main accused were mischievously involved in this case. Hence, they had allegedly a fit case for confirmation of bail before arrest.
4. The petition was resisted by the learned counsel for the State, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that all the four petitioners are named in the F.I.R. And have been armed with deadly weapons like hatchet, . 12 bore gun, carbine and Sota and all of them participated in the general attack opened by the accused party upon the complainant side thereby injuring Arif Hussain and Sardar aforementioned. It is, therefore, contended that there was no mala fide on the part of the police as the actual occurrence had taken place after the petitioners alongwith others had trespassed into the house of the complainant at about 9.00 p.m.
During the night of occurrence and had committed the offences mentioned against them. It was, therefore, alleged that the petitioners had no case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail particularly when their pre-arrest bail was dismissed by the Court below as they failed to prosecute the same nor did they comply with the order of the Court, whereby, they were called upon to enter the surety bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000 each while admitting them to bail. It was, therefore, urged that the petitioners were away an ' Attachee' case containing cash amounting to Rs,45,000 and golden ornaments weighing 3 Tolas. According to the medico-legal reports Sardar Muhammad suffered 5 injuries out of which injuries Nos. 3 and 4 were fractures of both humerus and ulna which were found to be grievous. Similarly, Arif Hussain, P.W. Suffered 7 injuries but no bony lesion was seen. The petitioners were also named in the F.I.R. And attributed specific role in causing the injuries to the victims. They applied for pre-arrest bail which came up for hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura on 27-3-1999 and were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail till 7-4- 1999 in the sum of Rs,30,000 each with one surety each in the like amount. On the aforesaid date of hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioners nor was the bail bonds were furnished as directed in the order, dated 27-3-1999, therefore, the petition dismissed.
4-A. This petition was moved in this Court fugitive from law, as they did not appear in the Court below and got the petition dismissed in order to earn the bail from this Court although they were specifically named in the F.I.R. With a specific attribution against them. The recovery of weapons of offence and the property including cash and ornaments has to be affected from them which so far remained unrecovered.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and ongoing through the record, it appears that Amanullah, S.I. While conducting the investigation recorded in case diary dated 26-4-1999 that some oath was given by a third person namely Dilawar Hussain when the parties were confronted during the investigation. However, that Dilawar Hussain allegedly took an oath in the mosque who stated that all the accused were the assailants and had injured the P.Ws. Forenamed after entering the house of the complainant except Arshad accused. However, that oath does not appear to have been accepted by the police or by the complainant side on the ground that Dilawar Hussain was a timid person and had taken a wrong oath in the mosque. However, the investigation proceeded further and a person namely Faqeer Hussain was allegedly nominated as an arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties but he had later on sworn an affidavit, whereby, he withdrew from the arbitration of which he informed the Punchayat which had made him arbitrator allegedly with the consent of the parties. The same Faqeer Hussain had allegedly sworn another affidavit whereby he stated that he was appointed as arbitrator with the consent of the parties by a 'Punchayat` but he could not make any decision.
6. I have considered the foregoing facts and find that the Investigating Officer had departed from the normal practice of investigating the criminal cases by involving a third person for arbitration for settling a criminal dispute beween adverseries. Anyhow, later the same Investigating Officer i,e, Amanullah, S.I. Came to the conclusion that all the accused in the case remained unsuccessful to give any evidence regarding their innocent nor they could satisfy him that they were not the actual assailants. The Investigating Officer also made an observation while conducting the investigation that the complainant had specifically stated that all the accused were involved in this case. The latest position in the investigation is that the same has now been transferred from Amanullah, S.I.
To D. S. P., C.I.A., Sheikhupura who has not yet taken any step further in the investigation.
7. In view of the foregoing facts and since all the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. And have been assigned specific role in causing injuries to the P.Ws. Along with their co-accused and they also misused the concession of earlier bails granted to them by the lower Court, therefore the petitioners have no case for confirmation of pre-arrest bails granted to them earlier. The petition is accordingly dismissed and the interim bails granted to the petitioners are re-called. The S.I. Present in the Court is directed to take all the four petitioners into custody.