-Pre-arrest bail, grant of--Allegation against petitioner gave a hatchet blow on head of injured lady--Co-accused who was allowed bail after arrest was assigned three successive blows of hatchet one on right buttock of injured person second on back of other injured man was and third on head of another injured whereas petitioner has been assigned only one injury--

 PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 9
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sohail Nasir, J.
MUHAMMAD AMEEN--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 3315-B of 2022, decided on 20.6.2022.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-F(ii), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-A(i), 337-L(ii), 452, 148 & 149--Pre-arrest bail, grant of--Allegation against petitioner gave a hatchet blow on head of injured lady--Co-accused who was allowed bail after arrest was assigned three successive blows of hatchet one on right buttock of injured person second on back of other injured man was and third on head of another injured whereas petitioner has been assigned only one injury--It is made clear that in case of misuse of concession of bail by petitioner during trial or delay in conclusion of trial because of his or anyone else acting on his behalf, trial Court shall be at liberty to recall this bail granting order--Bail allowed.

                                                                                [Para 6 & 9] A & B

1986 SCMR 1380.

Syed Jaffar Tayyar Bukhari, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Muhammad Laeeq-ur-Rehman, Assistant District Public Prosecutor.

Mr. Al-Wadood Sultan, Advocate for Complainant.

Date of hearing 20.6.2022.

Order

Muhammad Ameen (petitioner) has applied for his pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 1018 recorded on 22.12.2021 under Sections 337-F(ii)/337-A(ii)/337-F(i)/337-A(i)/337-L(ii)/452/148/149, PPC at Police Station Luddan District Vehari.

2. It was alleged that on 21.12.2021 at about 08:20 pm petitioner along with seven others being armed with different kind of weapons assaulted and caused injuries to Hakim Ali, Asghar Ali, Aslam, Samina Bibi, Faiza Bibi, Sobia Bibi and Mansab Bibi. Specific allegation against petitioner is that he gave hatchet blow on the head of Mansab Bibi.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner maintains that as co-accused Umar Farooq having greater role then petitioner has already been admitted to bail by this Court therefore petitioner also deserves for the concession of pre-arrest bail on the strength of principles laid down in “Muhammad Ramzan versus Zafar Ullah and another 1986 SCMR 1380 and Muhammad Azam Khan versus The State and another 2017 MLD 349”

4. On the other hand learned counsel for complainant and learned Law Officer for State contend that Umar Farooq was allowed bail after arrest whereas present petitioner is seeking extra ordinary relief of anticipatory bail.

5. HEARD.

6. Umar Farooq who was allowed bail after arrest was assigned three successive blows of hatchet one on the right buttock of Samina Bibi, second on the back of Muhammad Aslam and third on the head of Faiza Bibi whereas petitioner has been assigned only one injury. Similar proposition came up before the Apex Court in “Muhammad Ramzan versus Zafar Ullah and another 1986 SCMR 1380” in which it is held as under:

“After hearing the learned counsel we feel that prim facie, at this stage, the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from that of others to whom bail has been allowed. 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. We, therefore, in the circumstances of this case, do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. This petition accordingly, is dismissed.”

7. The same view was then followed by his Court in Muhammad Azam’s case.

8. In view of above, this application is allowed. Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in sum of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) with one surety to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

9. It is made clear that in case of misuse of concession of bail by petitioner during trial or delay in conclusion of trial because of his or anyone else acting on his behalf, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to recall this bail granting order. (Sheikh Abdul Raheem vs. The State and another 2021 SCMR 822).

(A.A.K.)          Bail allowed