This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case involving alleged offences under sections 337-F(iii), 337-L(2), 337-A(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner struck the complainant's finger with the blunt side of a hatchet. The Supreme Court observed that the maximum sentence for the primary offence was three years and that co-accused with similar roles had already been granted bail. The Court specifically addressed the investigating officer's demand for physical custody to recover the weapon. It held that since three months had elapsed since the incident, any biological evidence on the weapon would have disintegrated, rendering the recovery a mere formality of little legal consequence. Finding the intended arrest lacked a bona fide purpose, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Malik Muhammad Aslam petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 26-12-2012 passed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 17387-B of 2012 whereby pre-arrest bail was refused to him in case F.I.R. No. 495 registered at Police Station Lundianwala, District Faisalabad on 19-10-2012 in respect of offences under sections 337F(iii)/337-L(2)/34, P.P.C. During the investigation section 337-A(i), P.P.C. Had been added to the F.I.R.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record with their assistance we have observed that according to the F.I.R. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had given a blow from the wrong side of his hatchet to Muhammad Mushtaq complainant which blow had landed on the little finger of his right hand attracting the provisions of section 337- F(iii), P.P.C. An offence under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. Carries a maximum sentence of three years' imprisonment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner tlree co-accused of the petitioner have already been admitted to pre-arrest bail in this case and the said co-accused had given some simple injuries to the complainant on different parts of his body. The investigating officer has confirmed the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation but he has maintained that a hatchet is yet to be recovered from the petitioner's custody and, thus, the petitioner's physical custody is required by him for the said purpose. In this connection we have noticed that the occurrence in this case had taken place on 16-10-2012, i.e. Exactly three months ago, during which period any blood available on the petitioner's hatchet must have disintegrated leaving the proposed recovery to be of little legal consequence. In this view of the matter we have not felt persuaded to deprive the petitioner of his liberty merely to facilitate the investigating officer to go through a formality which formality is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose for the prosecution. In this backdrop the intended , arrest of the petitioner by the local police has not been found by us to be above board.
3. For what has been discussed above this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and, consequently, Malik Muhammad Aslam petitioner is admitted to pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within a period of two weeks from today.