HABIB Versus STATE

ORDER

The petitioners who are involved in a case under section 324/34, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.324, dated 13-8-1993, registered at Police Station Khanqah Dogran, seek to be admitted to pre-arrest bail. Vide order of this Court, dated 16-10-1993 they were admitted to ad interim pre-arrest bail. Today, the case is fixed for confirmation or otherwise of the said order.

2. As per F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioners is that of ineffective firing:

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners 2 and 3, namely, Atta Muhammad and Inayat were found innocent during the investigation and that no crime empty was found at the spot.

With respect to petitioners 1 and 4, i.e. Habib and Sanaullah, learned counsel submitted that due to civil litigation pending between the parties, they too have been involved in this case maliciously, so all the four petitioners are entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State after going through the record conceded that Atta Muhammad and Inayat were found innocent during the investigation on the solemn affirmation made by the complainant, whereas the remaining two were found involved in the case.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the bail application of the petitioners on the ground that there is no concept of solemn affirmation during the police investigation. I approve this finding of the learned Judge, but at the same time I should not be unmindful of the fact that in this case neither any crime empty was recovered from the spot nor any person was injured. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, the ad interim pre-arrest bail allowed to Atta Muhammad and Inayat is confirmed, because according to the complainant they were not present at the spot, whereas the bail petition qua Habib and Sanaullah petitioners is dismissed, who were found involved in this case.

N.H.Q./H-114/L

Order accordingly.