' Ghulam Akbar-petitioner along with others stands involved in Crime Report No,40, under sections 440/379/149 read with section 148, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Saddar, Jhang on 26-1-2001 on the application of one Haq Nawaz.
2. Precisely allegations against the petitioner are that he along with his co-accused armed with fire-arms and Lathis came at the spot and demolished boundary wall a room and veranda of the property constructed by the complainant.
3. The petitioner preferred his application for grant of pre-arrest bail before learned Sessions Judge, Jhang, who made over the same to a learned Additional Sessions Judge for its disposal in accordance with law. The said learned Judge by virtue of his order dated 27-9-2001 dismissed his application on the basis of variety of reasons embodied in the order itself. Now the petitioner has sought the same relief through the instant petition.
4. Both the sides have been heard at length. Admittedly both the sides are inimical towards each other. Allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused as well as unknown three persons are that they were armed with Sotas and tire-arms and caused demolition of a room, veranda and boundary wall constructed by the complainant. Only one question was posed to learned counsel for the complainant and learned State Counsel by this Court, as to whether any of the eye- witnesses or the complainant by himself during the course of investigation ever stated that the petitioner and his co-accused were carrying spades, Ganties or such-like implements used for breaking the property, the answer was in the negative. This allegation is absurd, ridiculous and fantastic one. A brick made room, veranda or boundary wall could not have been demolished by Sotas. Even the police official, present in Court with record, has apprised this Court that Additional Superintendent of Police also carried out investigation in this matter and he recommended discharge of the case. He further submits that the A.S.P. Has prepared a separate report in this regard. The petitioner is also an old person. His arrest for investigation purpose is not vital.
5. For all these reasons interim anticipatory bail already allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 4-10-2001 is hereby confirmed.