MUKHTAR AHMAD vs The STATE and others

ORDER

' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through these petitions Mukhtar Ahmed petitioner-complainant has sought leave to appeal against the orders dated 05.10.2015 and 14.10.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 11534-B of 2015 and 13080-B of 2015 respectively whereby Tanveer and Asif Ali respondents had been admitted to pre-arrest bail in case FIR No 318 registered at Police Station Hair, District Lahore on 20.07.2015 in respect of offences under sections 337-F(i), 337-F(iv), 337-L(2), 148, 149 and 379, P.P.C.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have observed that according to the FIR Tanveer respondent had caused an injury to Mukhtar Ahmed complainant on his left thigh with a chhurri and Asif Ali respondent was also armed with a chhurri and he had caused an injury to Mukhtar Ahmed complainant on his left ankle. The injuries caused by the respondents attracted the provisions of sections 337-F(ii) and 337-F(iv), P.P.C. Respectively which offences are non-bailable. It was also alleged in the FIR that the respondents had snatched, away a sum of Rs, 10,000/- from the complainant and the offence under section 379, P.P.C. Invoked in the FIR in that respect is also non-bailable. It is not disputed that the eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR, including the injured complainant, have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating Tanveer and Asif Ali respondents in the alleged offences and also that prima facie the medical evidence lends support to the allegations leveled by the prosecution against the said respondents. We have gone through the reasons prevailing with the High Court for admitting the said respondents to pre-arrest bail and have found that the, said reasons do not commend themselves for approval. The said respondents had been admitted to pre-arrest bail by the High Court primarily upon the consideration that the offences allegedly committed by them did not attract the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The High Court had failed to appreciate that the said B consideration is hardly relevant to a case wherein what is sought is pre-arrest bail which is an extraordinary concession. This Court has repeatedly declared that the concession of pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed to an accused person unless the court feels satisfied about seriousness of the accused person's assertion regarding his intended C arrest being actuated by mala fide on the part of the complainant party or the local Police but not a word about this crucial aspect of the matter is to be found in the impugned orders passed by the High Court in the present case. It had also not been appreciated by the High Court that an earlier petition filed by Asir Ali respondent before the High Court seeking pre-arrest bail in the selfsame criminal case had been dismissed by the said Court on account of absence of the said respondent despite being on ad-interim pre-arrest bail. Such conduct displayed by the said respondent on the earlier occasion ought to have, in the absence of any valid justification, sufficed to disentitle him to an exercise of discretion in his favour in the second round. The investigating officer present before the Court has informed that during the investigation the allegations leveled against Tanveer and Asif Ali respondents have been found to have been fully established. He has maintained that the weapons of offence are yet to be recovered from the custody of the said respondents and for that purpose physical custody of the respondents is required by the local police.

3. For what has been discussed above these petitions are converted into appeals and the same are allowed and, consequently, the impugned orders passed by the High Court on 05.10.2015 and 14.10.2015 are set aside and pre-arrest to Tanveer and Asif Ali respondents by the High Court is cancelled.

Bail cancelled.