Technical ground that the consideration for pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail are entirely on different footing, would be only limited upto the arrest of the petitioners because of the reason that soon after their arrest they would be entitled for the concession of post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency.

 There is no denial to the fact that there is a delay of four days in lodging the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been given. As per the contents of the crime report, 17 persons are nominated in the crime report, who allegedly while variously armed caused injuries to the injured PWs on various parts of the body. There is a counter version of the occurrence which was recorded by the local police regarding the same occurrence vide FIR No. 310/2020 under Sections 379 / 354 / 427 / 337-A(i) / 337-L(ii) / 148 / 149 PPC at Police Station Sher Garh, District Okara. While evaluating the facts and circumstances narrated from both ends, it has become imperative for this Court to adjudicate the matter keeping in view the role ascribed to accused nominated in counter case and while keeping the same in juxtaposition it has to arrive at a conclusion which meets the requirements of the dictates of justice. During course of arguments, it has been pointed out that four coaccused of the petitioners were taken into custody by the local police and they have been granted post-arrest bail by the court of competent jurisdiction, which has not been challenged by the complainant at any forum. We are conversant with the fact that as per the contents of the crime report, the case of either of the petitioners cannot be distinguished from the four co-accused who have been granted the concession of post-arrest bail. In such like situation, when it is admitted fact that the role ascribed to a large number of accused is of general nature and that cannot be distinguished from each other, if 4 out of 17 accused have already been granted bail by the court of competent jurisdiction which remains unchallenged by the complainant, any order by this Court on any technical ground that the consideration for pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail are entirely on different footing, would be only limited upto the arrest of the petitioners because of the reason that soon after their arrest they would be entitled for the concession of post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency. In a similar situation in the case reported as Muhammad Ramzan Vs. Zafarullah (1986 SCMR 1380), the respondent, who was involved in a murder case, was allowed pre-arrest bail by the learned High Court while the other similarly placed co-accused were granted bail after arrest. The complainant did not challenge the grant of bail after arrest to the similarly placed co-accused and sought cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent before this Court by filing a criminal petition but this Court dismissed the petition for cancellation of bail by holding that “no useful purpose would be served if the bail of Zafar Ullah Khan respondent is cancelled on any technical ground because after arrest he would again be allowed bail on the ground that similarly placed other accused are already on bail.” In these circumstances, it is the Trial Court who after recording of evidence would decide about the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner. Prima facie there are sufficient grounds to take into consideration that the case of the petitioners is fully covered by Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry to their guilt.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 507-L OF 2021
Kazim Ali and others vs The State etc