' Manzoor Ahmed son of Muhammad Sharif seeks his pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.862 of 2003 registered at Police Station Factory Area District, Faisalabad on 8-12-2003 for offences under sections 148, 427, 324 and 149, P.P.C.
2. The allegation against the petitioner levelled in therecorded at the instance of Muhammad Sajid son of Noor Muhammad Khan was that he alongwith his co-accused who were also armed with pistol suddenly emerged in front of their car and the petitioner fired with his pistol as a result of which the bullet hit Mehdi Khan on the front side of the car after piercing through the windscreen of the car. Likewise there were serious allegations against the rest of the co-accused in the F. I .R .
3. The petitioner obtained ad interim pre-arrest bail from the Court of leaned Additional Sessions Jude, Faisalabad on 8-4-2004. But neither he furnished bail bonds nor did he appear in that Court on 15-4-2004 as a result of which his bail application had been dismissed. Hence the instant application.
4. The learned counsel in support of his plea for bail has argued that four out of five nominated accused persons in the F.I.R. Have since been found to be innocent and one of them namely Muhammad Asghar had been got discharged by the police; that opinion of innocence in favour of four accused persons has not been challenged by the complainant before any forum as such according to him this circumstances would adversely reflect on the veacity of the story as contained in the F.I.R. Rendering the said F.I.R. Unworthy of credit. He argued that the F.I.R. Against the petitioner is motivated and has been filed only with a view to settling some previous scores on account of election rivalry between the petitioner and the complainant party.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel at length. I have noticed that the F.I.R.
Was recorded as far back as on 8-12-2003. More than five months have elapsed and according to the learned counsel the petitioner approached the Sessions Court for the first time for his pre- arrest bail on 8-4-2004 i.e. Four months after the alleged occurrence and after obtaining the concession of pre-arrest bail he neither submitted bail bonds nor did he choose to appear before the learned Sessions Court on 15-4-2004. The petitioner has arrogated to himself the authority to adjust his own timeframe to approach the Courts for relief. He cannot be allowed to do so. There is a very serious allegation against him and co very of fire-arm is to be effected from him. He has successfully managed to elude the process of law for more than five months. His case does not present any special feature so as to entitle him to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.
There is no merit in this petition whish is dismissed in limine.
Pre-arrest .