' SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.--- This appeal has been directed against the judgment of the Shariat Court, dated 10-11-1999, whereby the bail granted to the accused-respondents by the District Criminal Court was upheld and the revision petition was dismissed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that F.I.R. Was lodged at Police Post Ali Beg on 2-4-1999 by the complainant that when he was going towards his fields, he saw the goats belonging to Muhammad Siddique, accused-respondent, damaging his wheat crop.
Consequently, he asked Muhammad Siddique, accused-respondent, to take away his goats from his field. After sometime, when he came back after visiting his other fields and reached the place of occurrence, the respondent-accused, who were armed with a hatchet and stick, attacked him.
Sohail Siddique, respondent, inflicted three injuries with the back side of the hatchet to the complainant, in consequence of which he fell on the ground. Thereafter, Muhammad Siddique, accused-respondent caused injuries to him with the stick. Consequently, a case under sections 341, 506 and 337/34, A.P.C. Was registered against the accused persons. The accused-respondents first sought bail from the. Tehsil Criminal Court, Bhimber, but the same was rejected. Thereafter, pre- arrest bail was granted to Muhammad Siddique, accused-respondent, by the District Criminal Court but the same was denied to Sohail Siddique. However, subsequently, after arrest, Sohail Siddique was also allowed bail by the District Criminal Court. The complainant challenged the bail granted to the accused-respondents before the Shariat Court through a revision petition which was rejected. It is against the aforesaid order of the Shariat Court that the present appeal has been preferred.
3. Mr. Khalid Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the order of the Shariat Court is not sustainable because the discretion exercised in allowing bail to the accused-respondents offends against the well-settled principle of law. He has argued that the Courts below have failed to draw distinction between the order of pre-arrest bail and bail granted after the arrest of an accused person. The learned counsel has contended that this Court has held in a number of cases that ordinarily the pre-arrest bail should not be granted to the accused persons who are, prima facie, guilty of the offences like the one with which the respondents have been charged. The learned counsel has submitted that pre-arrest bail granted to Muhammad Siddique could not be granted, especially so when he inflicted serious injuries to the complainant.
He has further argued that the complainant was attacked without any provocation merely because he asked Muhammad Siddique to take away his goats from his fields. The learned counsel has further maintained that while granting or refusing bail, the conduct of the accused persons should be taken into consideration. He has submitted that the mere fact that the maximum punishment in the relevant offence& is not more than five years, was no ground to extend the concession of bail to the respondents. The learned counsel has also argued that the Courts below have also overlooked the fact that the 'eyesight of the victim of offence has been lost due to the injuries caused by the accused-respondents.
4. Ch. Muhammad Mushtaq, the learned Additional Advocate-General, supported the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. In reply, Ch. Lal Hussain, Advocate, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents, has controverted the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. He has submitted that the concurrent exercise of discretion in the matter of bail is hardly disturbed by this Court. He has further submitted that there is no law laid down by this Court that pre-arrest bail should be refused in all cases. The learned counsel has argued that the dictum laid down by this Court regarding pre-arrest bail pertains to the offence of murder and not the offences with which the accused- respondents have been charged. He has also argued that there is no proof on the record to show that the eyesight of the victim of offence has been adversely affected due to the alleged injuries attributed to any of the accused-respondents.
6. We have given due consideration to the arguments raised at the Bar. It may be pointed out that the discretion exercised in bail matter is disturbed only in cases where the same offends against the well-settled principles of law or is patently illegal. In the instant case no material has been placed on the record that the injuries alleged to have been caused by the accused-respondents have resulted in the loss of eyesight of the complainant. It is not disputed that the maximum punishment for the offences committed in the instant case is five years. It may also be pointed out that no authority has been cited on behalf of the appellant that in case like one in hand pre-arrest bail could not be allowed to an accused person. Therefore, we are of the view that it cannot be said in the present case that discretion exercised by the Courts below is perverse or is patently illegal.
' In the light of what has been stated above, finding no force in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed.