' This order will be read in continuation of my earlier order dated 23-9-1976 by which this application was admitted and notice was issued to the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Rashida petitioner made a statement before the police on 22- 8-1976 at about 7-15 a.m. In which she levelled allegations against the respondents for commission of trespass while armed with lethal weapons and attempt to take away forcibly Mst. Gulfaz Anwar, her daughter. The motive behind the crime as stated by the complainant was that this Mst. Gulfaz Anwar was married to Muhammad Akram respondent sometime back but due to strained relations between them, she was divorced by Muhammad Akram respondent and was living with her mother, the petitioner. It was alleged that Muhammad Akram, Ahmad, Ataullah and Abdul Sattar, entered forcibly into her house at sehri time and dragged away Mst. Gulfaz Anwar and in that process inflicted injuries on the persons of the petitioner, Mst. Gulfaz Anwar and Mst. Hakim Bibi. The respondents applied for pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur who was pleased to grant the same on the following grounds:-
(1) that the _injuries assigned to the respondents were not mentioned in the F. I. R.;
(ii) that prima facie they were guilty only of an offence under section 342, P. P. C. Which was not punishable with imprisonment for life or ten years' R. I.; and
(iii) that the allegation regarding the stealing of talagnarna was not plausible in view of the circumstances of the case.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that all these observations are not borne out from the record of this case as the reading of the F. I. R. Would rhow that the causing of injuries to the complainant and other two ladies, has been mentioned in the F. I. R. And that they were immediately examined by the police officer who prepared this document. It has been also submitted that the observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the case falls only under section 342, Cr. P. C. Is unwarranted and unfounded as the offences with which the respandents have been implicated prima facie, fall under section 382/452, P. P. C. And there was hardly any data before the Additional Sessions Judge to conclude otherwise. He has also assailed the observations of the Additional Sessions Judge regarding the theft of talagnama by submitting that there is ample evidence on the record that this talaqnama was executed by Muhammad Akram respondent who had purchased the stamp-paper to that effect from the Stamp Vendor. It has also been urged that the concession of pre-arrest bail is an exceptional concession which is not meant for persons like the respondents who had acted in a highhanded manner at dark hour of night while armed with lethal weapons and had caused injuries to the petitioner as well as to the other helpless ladies in their house.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge Wits fully justified to grant them this extraordinary concession of bail because the case was prima facie a case of mala fide as he could prove that Mst. Gulfaz Anwar was never divorced by Muhammad Akram respondent. To substantiate this contention, he has placed before this Court an application (Exh. R/1) and an F. I. R. (Exh. R/2) to show that Mst. Rashida petitioner herself has once.! Conceded in May 1976 that Mst. Gulfaz Anwar was a legally wedded wife of Muhammad Akram respondent. He has submitted that once a discretion by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been used in a proper manner, the superior Court would not set aside the same unless it is found that his order is either perverse or based on artificial reasons.
5. I have given my anxious thought to all these contentions and have perused the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge vis-a-vis the F. I. R. And other relevant documents placed before me. Before I enter into the merits of the case regarding the grant of pre-arrest bail to the respondents, I would like to observe that in view of Full Bench ruling of this Court in Hidayatullah's case (1) relied upon by Mr. Justice Ataullah Sajjad (as his Lordship then was) in the case of Ghulam Abbas Khan v. Zakaullah, etc. (2) that concession of pre-arrest bail is extraordinary concession and it is only granted to the persons when it is found that the case has been lodged against them out of malice or the very gravamen of the complaint may reveal that prima facie no case is made out against such persons. This concession is to be exercised in favour of respectable citizens of the State keeping in view their educational, social and political background in order to save them from harassm ent and humiliation which they would otherwise undergo if this relief is not granted to them. In the instant case what I find is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified to observe that there was no mention of injuries having been inflicted on the petitioner and other two ladies in the F. I. R., as the same is fully borne out from the document. This fact is further highlighted in the Karwai police where it is clearly stated by the S. H.
0. That examination of these three ladies revealed that they have suffered multiple injuries on their persons. This fact is further strengthened from the medical evidence, which discloses that Mst.
Rashida petitioner suffered seven injuries while Mst. Hakim Bibi and Mst. Gulfaz Anwar received ten and three injuries, respectively, totalling 20 injuries in all. Similarly, the observation of the Additional Sessions Judge that the case against the respondents will only fall under section 342, P. P. C., would be an unjustified observation as the same is not supported by cogent reason borne out from the facts of the case as narrated in the F. I. R. As a matter of abundant caution, the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have refrained from making this note as it is likely to affect the merits of the case. In view of the above analysis of the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents were not entitled to this extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge which is based on artificial reasoning without proper application of law, is liable to be set aside.
6. The result is that I accept the application, set aside the impugned order and cancel the bail of the respondents so granted to them by the Additional Sessions Judge. They will be taken into custody forthwith.
7. However, the respondents will be at liberty to move for bail before the trial Court after their arrest and the learned Court will dispose of the same on merit.
8. A separate copy of this order be sent to my Lord, the Chief Justice for information.