' Zar Muhammad, Jamshed, Nazir Muhammad and Muhammad Majid, respondents with others stand involved in case F.I.R. No,366 registered with Police Station Hangu on 14-5-2001 under sections 324/148/149/429, P.P.C. Read with sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act, at the behest of complainant Saleh Hassan.
2. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the local police, the respondents moved an application before Additional Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court Hangu for grant of pre-arrest bail. The application was accepted and respondents were admitted to pre-arrest bail which was subsequently confirmed vide order dated 19-6-2001.
3. Saleh Hassan complainant, feeling aggrieved, has approached this Court by way of filing instant application (Cr. M. No,743 of 2001) seeking cancellation of to the respondents per the impugned order dated 19-6-2001.
4. The crime in question is alleged to have taken place on 14-5-2001 at 0440 hours, a little before rising of the sun and the matter was reported to the police at 05-40 hours, an hour after the occurrence by Saleh Hassan complainant.
5. Prosecution story as reflected in the F.I.R. Briefly stated is, that on the night of occurrence complainant along with his family members was present in his house in village Warasita and was having a cup of tea when he heard the sound of a blast on which the complainant along with Muhammad Yunas and Abdul Matin P.Ws. Went over the roof of the 'Kotha'. It was 04-00 hours. In the meanwhile, there was another explosion outside the house. The complainant and his companions saw the accused-respondents alongwith three Other unknown persons duly armed with, kalashrlikovs. On seeing the complainant, all of the in resorted to firing at the complainant and his companions Muhammad Yunas and Abdul Matin but they escaped unhurt. Because of the explosion, one goat sustained injuries. The motive behind the occurrence was stated to be deep- rooted enmity between the parties.
6. Mr: M. Amin Khattak, Advocate for the complainant bitterly criticised the impugned order and contended that overwhelming evidence was brought on record to connect' the accused- respondents with the guilt but the learned trial Judge irrespective of the incriminating material in possession of prosecution, exercised his discretion improperly in favour of the accused- respondents and bestowed them with extraordinary concession of. Anticipatory bail -which was not warranted in the circumstances of the case. To substantiate the pleas, he placed reliance on Murad Khan v. Fazal-eSubhan and another (PLD 1983 SC 82) and Qayyum Nawaz Khan v. The State (1998 M LD 503.
7. Mr. Abdul Karim, Advocate, learned State council adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and contended that in view of sufficient material on record consisting of the statements of complainant and his companions, recovery of crime empties from the spot, injury sheet of the goat and promptly lodged report wherein the accused-respondents were directly nominated for the commission of crime and a specific role was assigned to them, the learned trial Judge has erred in extending the concession of ad-interim bail to the accused-respondents which is not sustainable in the eye of law.
8. Mr. Jamshed Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the accused-respondents in reply to the arguments addressed on behalf of the complainant, supported the impugned order and attempted to argue that the accused-respondents had no hand in the affair and that they were falsely implicated with sole object to pressurize them to come on terms with the complainant party statedly having enmity with the complainant party.
9. It needs no reiteration that in order to justify the grant of anticipatory bail the petitioner is required to show that he apprehends his arrest on account of 'ulterior motives'. One of the main considerations for grant of bail is whether the prosecution is motivated by malice so as to cause irreparable injury to citizen's reputation and liberty. The accused person approaching the Court of law for grant of anticipatory bail is required to show that he is falsely implicated for extraneous considerations and 'ulterior motives' are behind his apprehended arrest. The accused person becomes entitled for this concession on fulfilment of these conditions. The following observations were made in Shabir Ahmad v. The State (PLD 1981 Lahore 599):-- "The criteria laid down in Hidayatullah Khan's case has not undergone many change so far. The three principles laid down therein have to be strictly followed. This power should sparingly be exercised in appropriate cases. The Courts should strictly avoid the exercise of this power at random, which is likely to embarras the prosecution in investigation as usually is the general complaint. This balance has to be kept and each case has to be dealt with on its own merits...The Court should seriously apply its mind before passing the order of pre-arrest bail. I must, however, make it clear that Courts are the guardians of liberty, of citizens. The abuse of power by the police to rope in innocent persons in order to humiliate them and to cause irreparable loss to their reputation should be equally kept in view. The golden principles in Hidayat Ullah. Khan's case must strictly be followed."
10. As already observed, the cardinal principle for the admission of an accused to pre-arrest bail is as to whether or not he is apprehending unnecessary harassment at the hands of the police. In this case, the element of unnecessary harassment by the police for 'ulterior motives' is conspicuously missing. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents has remained unable to persuade me to hold that accused-respondents had no concern with the crime in-question and they were falsely roped in on account of deep-rooted enmity between the parties. A perusal of the material available on record would indicate that accused respondents are prima facie associates with the guilt and they appear to have a hand in it.
11.In the wake of above discussion, the application of the complainant is accepted and to the accused-respondents per the impugned order is cancelled. The accused-respondents are present in Court. They are directed to be taken into custody and sent to judicial lock-up to await their trial.
12.Needless to add here that the observations made above are tentative in nature and confined to the order in hand only. The learned trial Judge shall decide the case with open mind without being influenced by the abovementioned observations.
Pre-arrest bail cancelled.