' Adnan Nabi son of Ghulam Nabi had applied for his pre-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,213 of 2001, dated 12-7-2001 under section 324, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Farid Town, Sahiwal, as his application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, vide his order, dated 13-8-2001. The petitioner moved his application for pre-arrest bail before this Court and he was admitted to ad interim pre-arrest bail vide order, dated 17-8-2001.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner, as leveled in the F.I.R., is that at about 9-00 p.m. On 11-7-2001, he came across the complainant, Abdul Jabbar, and after exhorting Lalkara, he fired at the complainant which missed and hit the nearby wall. According to the F.I.R., the occurrence was also witnessed by Nisar Ahmad and Asghar. Ali P.Ws. As this Court has admitted the petitioner to ad interim pre arrest. Bail, the learned counsel, for the complainant and the learned counsel for the State were asked to argue as to why the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner should not be confirmed.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued his case on the following lines:--
(i) That the conduct of the petitioner was not aboveboard, which was relevant for the purpose of pre-arrest bail, as he did not appear before the learned Sessions Judge on 13-8-2001. The perusal of the order of the learned Sessions Judge shows that on some previous dates he had sought adjournments.
(ii) That the petitioner is the sole accused, who is named in the F .1. R.
(iii) That he was armed with a pistol .30 bore and fired at the complainant, who luckily escaped.
(iv) That section 324, P.P.C. Being punishable with imprisonment for 10 years attracts the provisions of prohibitory clause of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And
(v) That for the purpose of recovery, according to him, it is necessary that the petitioner should be handed over to the police.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, in the circumstances, of the case has not opposed the confirmation of the already granted ad interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends:--
(i) That non-appearance of the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge was not wilful.
(ii) That he has not absconded after the rejection of his bail but he has surrendered himself before the superior Court, therefore, it cannot be said that he had, in anyway, abused the concession of bail.
(iii) That there was a delay of about 22 hours in reporting the matter to the police.
(iv) That it is a case of ineffective firing.
(v) That the petitioner was a student of the age of not more than 18 years, according to his birth certificate, and
(vi) That according to the F.I.R., the petitioner was armed with pistol while the complainant was empty-handed, in case the petitioner had any intention to kill the complainant then nothing could strict him from doing that.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It has been admitted by the Investigating Officer that the petitioner had joined the investigation not only after the grant of pre-arrest bail by this Court but earlier as well. It has been noticed that no empty was recovered from the spot. According to the Investigating Officer, he could not find any mark of firing on the wall as referred to in the F.I.R. I have also noticed that on the question of delay, the complainant has not mentioned any person who had come to him and asked for not to report the matter to the police.
The explanation of delay is not satisfactory in the circumstances of the case. It is a settled principle of law that third degree method cannot be allowed to be applied on the B accused for the purpose of recovery. In this regard I rely upon the cases of Muhammad Ashraf and another v. The State 1982 PCr.LJ 1286 and Muhammad Mehmood Sultan v. The State 1978 PCr.LJ 104. It is ironical that for the recovery of weapons instead of using its professional skill, the police has become habitual to effect recovery through easy method of applying torture. It is right time that police should change its attitude towards citizens. Even otherwise in this case since no injury has been caused on the person of the complainant and no empty has been found from the scene of occurrence, the recovery of pistol would hardly be relevant.
7. The prime consideration for grant of pre-arrest bail would be the unjustified arrest. In the circumstances of the case if the pre-arrest bail is not granted to the petitioner merely on the technical ground, it would serve no purpose, as the petitioner has already joined the investigation.
In the present case, the Police Officer instead of applying his mind had been blind-foldedly acted upon the dictates of the complainant, which shows the malts fide on the part of the police. So far as the conduct of the petitioner is concerned, it is admitted that after the grant of pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge, he had been attending the Court on each and every date except on 13-8-2001.
8. Before parting with this order, I appreciate the arguments and the attitude of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, who had endeavoured to assist the Court and not adopted the routine of opposing the bail irrespective of the merits.
9. In the light of the above discussion, I confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order,' dated 17-8-2001, subject to his tendering fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,one lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge.
10. This petition stands disposed of.