NADEEM vs The STATE and another

ORDER

' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---The petitioner seeks bail -before arrest in case FIR No,127 of 2015 dated 19.04.2015, offence under sections 324, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Gogera, District Okara.

2. Precise allegation against the petitioner, as contained in the FIR, is that he along with his co- accused, while armed with deadly weapons, launched a murderous assault on the complainant party and that the fire shot by the petitioner landed on the right thigh of injured Mumtaz Ali.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, learned Additional Prosecutor General Punjab and perusing the material available on record, we have noticed that the role assigned to the petitioner, as per the FIR, is that the fire shot by him hit Mumtaz Ali, injured on his right thigh. It has been observed by us that the pre-arrest bail of the petitioner was confirmed by the learned High Court mainly because of the opinion of the District Standing Medical Board (DSMB) dated 03.07.2015 which was to the effect that possibility of fabrication qua the injury on the person of Mumtaz Ali could not be ruled out. The said opinion of the DSMB was challenged by injured Mumtaz Ali and on re-examination the Provincial Standing Medical Board, vide its opinion dated 30.09.2015, opined that no evidence of self infliction has been found during reexamination by it. The learned Additional Prosecutor General, on instructions, has confirmed that as per the police investigation, the . Petitioner was present at the time of occurrence but was empty handed. It has also been noted by us that Khalid Ameen from the accused side also sustained injuries, whose MLR has also been placed on record. He was medically examined on 19.04.2015 at 10.30 p.m. He was taken to the hospital by the police. As per MLR, he received injuries which were caused by firearm. There is nothing in the FIR regarding the injuries of Khalid Ameen. In the circumstances chances of false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it escaped the notice of the learned High Court that grounds for the grant of bail and its cancellation thereof are altogether different. In the absence of any evidence that the petitioner had tried to misuse the concession of bail or attempted to tamper with the prosecution evidence, it was not open for the learned High Court to recall the bail already granted to the petitioner. The learned Additional Prosecutor General has also confirmed that challan has already been submitted in the trial Court.

4. For what has been discussed above, this petition is converted into appeal and the same is allowed. Consequently, petitioner Nadeem is allowed pre-arrest bail in the instant FIR, subject to furnishing his bail bond in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees One hundred thousands only), with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.