M. AKRAM vs ABDUL MAJEED and anothers

ORDER

' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---The petitioner, namely, Muhammad Akram, who is complainant of case F.I.R.

No,139, dated 23-3-2005, registered at Police Station Saddar Pakpattan Sharif for offences under sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 148, 149 read with section 109, P.P.C., by filing the instant petition seeks cancellation of to Abdul Majeed son of Muhammad Ishaq and Abdullah alias Asadullah (respondents Nos. 1 and 2) by the learned Sessions Judge; Pakpattan Sharif vide order, dated 13-9-2005.

2. The case of the prosecution as it unfolded in the F.I.R. According to the petitioner, was that on the fateful, day, i,e, 29-3-2005, about 8.00 a.m., he along with Khizar Hayat and Abdul Rauf went towards his plot and on reaching there, Jahangir, armed with .12 bore gun, Abdul Rehman, armed with revolver .32 bore, Abdullah (respondent No,2), armed with Sota, Abdul Majeed (respondent No,1), armed with .12 bore double barreled gun, who were already present there, exhorted a Lalkara as to how did they come to the plot, whereupon the complainant replied that it belonged to him; thereafter, Abdul Rehman started hurling abuses and caught hold of him by his collar; when Khizar Hayat and Abdul Rauf went forward to rescue him, Abdul Majeed (respondent) delivered a blow with butt of his gun; on hearing hue and cry, Muhammad Anwar son of Mansha, Muhammad Tufail son of Hussain Muhammad, Noor Ahmad son of Akbar and Khalid son of Jehangir were attracted to the scene and witnessed the occurrence within their sight. Abdul Rehman gave a blow with butt of his revolver on the back of his head and thereafter Abdullah caused a Sota blow on his forehead; on the raising of Lalkara by Abdul Rehman that today no Gujar be left alieve and simultaneously Jahangir fired a shot through his gun which hit Khizar Hayat on his chest, who fell on the ground; then Abdullah gave a Sota blow on the right ear of Abdul Rauf, Anwar and others, who were present there and witnessed the' occurrence, beseeched the accused and saved the injured persons.

According to the complainant the incident had taken place on the abetment and instigation of Mushtaq son of Muhammad Ali. Themotive behind the occurrence was that the accused party wanted to take possession of the plot forcibly and the complainant party started keeping a vigil on the said plot, due to which the accused party having grudge attacked the complainant and his companions. Resultantly, the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.

3. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 apprehending their imminent arrest at the hands of the police had approached the learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, for grant of pre-arrest bail, who proceeded to allow them the said relief vide order, dated 13-9-2005. It is the said order, which has been assailed through this petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerablelength and have also gone through the impugned order. It has been observed that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge reads more like a judgment after a full-fledged criminal Trial. From the tenor of the order it appears that he had drawn definite conclusions and had travelled beyond the realm of tentative assessm ent of the material available on the record. His observations i.e:-- "So far as the case of Abdul Majeed and Asadullah alias Abdullah is concerned, I hold that the injuries attributed to them firstly does not coincide with the medico-legal reports. Secondly the injuries so shown in the medico-legal reports are declared as of bailable nature. In such like circumstances, the refusal of bail would be an exception because of the fact that an innocent person without any good reasons could not be sent to jail to undergo the agony without any ground reasonable in nature." ' are absolutely uncalled for. Perusal of the medico-legal report of Muhammad Akram injured (petitioner) who had allegedly received injury at the hand of Abdullah (respondent No,2) with a Sota on his head shows that the said injury had been declared to be falling under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. Whereas the medico-legal report of Abdul Rauf shows that he had also received an injury on the left temporal area, which had allegedly been caused by Abdul Majeed (respondent No,1) and prima facie was in consonance with what has been described in the F.I.R. And the statement of Abdul Rauf recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge while allowing pre-arrest bail to the respondents completely lost sight of the established principles for the grant of such bail and the guidelines issued by the Superior Courts from time to time. The grant of pre-arrest bail to the respondents at a stage when the same had been granted amounted to stifling the prosecution case which was neither permissible nor desirable.

5. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the order, dated13-9-2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakpatan Sharif, whereby respondents Nos.1 and 2 had been granted bail is hereby recalled.

Bail cancelled.