1. ' Through this petition under section 498, the petitioners seek bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,180, dated 4-9-2001, registered at Police Station Saddar, District Sargodha on the statement of Ahmad Sher against the present petitioners and one Zafar Iqbal under sections 337-A(i), 342/34, P.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that complainant 5/6 years ago was married with the daughter of Muhammad Yaqub, petitioner, namely, Mst. Nasim and it was exchange marriage. Relations between the spouses became strained. In order to effect a compromise, he alongwith his mother Mst. Manzooran Bibi, Arshad Mehmood, Atta Muhammad and Mst. Ameeran Bibi had gone to the house of Muhammad Yaqub petitioner and knocked the door. Muhammad Zafar co-accused came out and raised a Lalkara that Ahmad Sher has come. Meanwhile, Muhammad Yaqub, Muhammad Zafar, Umar Hayat, and Muhammad Hayat armed with Sotas came out. One Muhammad Yaqub raised a Lalkara that the complainant shall be taught a lesson for effecting a compromise. Muhammad Zafar caused a Sota blow on the Mother of the complainant hitting her on the left arm near the elbow, 2nd blow was given by Muhammad Yaqub with Sota on the left arm and 3rd blow was also given by Muhammad Zafar with Sota hitting on the right arm and right arm was broken who fell down on the ground. It is also stated that Mst. Amiran Bibi was also caught from the hairs and caused injuries and her clothes were torn. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the contents of the F.I.R. Are based on wrong allegations. Mst. Nasim Bibi got divorce from the complainant on 2-5-2000. He further contends that the complainant party were the aggressors. They had no business to come to the house of the petitioners which is at far off place from the residence of the complainant party and they were aggressors. It is further contended that the medical evidence was not corroborated by ocular accounts as only one injury has been found on the right arm of the injured mother of the complainant. He further contended that the registration of the F.I.R. Is with mala fide intention, and ulterior motive as previous ill-will existed between the parties even before the registration of the case. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application that the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R.
2. With specific role for the commission of offence and they are not entitled to any extraordinary relief by this Court. He further contends that during the investigation it has been found that the complainant party was summoned by the accused party to effect a compromise.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is an admitted fact that Mst. Nasim was married to the complainant and she got divorce through judgment and decree, dated 22-5-2000 and she was no more wife of the complainant as he has stated in the F.I.R. It is also borne out from the record that only one injury has been found by the doctor on the right arm of the injured P.W. And the medical evidence does not support about causing of three injuries which are specifically attributed to Muhammad Zafar co-accused and Muhammad Yaqub petitioner. Moreover, the medical. Evidence also does not prove the allegation of dragging of the injured P.W. By the accused. The other two petitioners, namely, Umar Hayat and Muhammad Hayat have been attributed general allegation of beating the complainant with Sotas, but in the absence of any medical evidence as the complainant was not got medically examined, the role attributed to both of them cannot be adjudged. Prima facie, it seems that the case has been registered due to between the parties existed due to obtaining of divorct by Mst. Nasim Bibi. The complainant has tried to exaggerage the incident in order to involve the whole family members for redressal of his personal grievances. The complainant has also failed to show any reason for visiting the house of his ex-in-laws with whom he has strained relations as the litigation between both the parties continued for a long period. Muhammad Yaqub, petitioner, though has been attributed injury on the right arm yet the said injury was not found on the person of the injured P.W. By the doctor and only one injury found on the person of the injured P.W. Is allegedly attributed to Muhammad Zafar.
3. Therefore, it cannot be said that Muhammad Yaqub, petitioner caused any injury to the injured P.W.
4. Admittedly, Muhammad Yaqub, petitioner and the complainant had grievances against each other as divorce was obtained by his daughter from the complainant. It is well settled that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the case has been registered with mala fide intention and ulterior motive due to the previous enmity between the parties, then bail before arrest shall be granted to such accused persons and the opinion of the police that the occurrence has taken place in the manner as stated by the complainant is not binding on the Courts. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the police was in league with the complainant party who instead of inquiring into the reason for coming of the complainant party to the house of the petitioners in such strained relations registered a case merely on the ground that one of the P.W.
5. Received injuries during the occurrence. I have noticed that the petitioner's involvement is due to previous litigation and with mala fide intention. In such circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail. The petitioners are already on ad interim pre-arrest bail vide order, dated 24-9-2001 which is hereby confirmed by accepting this application subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds each in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial/Duty Magistrate concerned, Sargodha.
6. Pre-arrest 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.