DUR MUHAMMAD Versus STATE

ORDER

1. The applicants seeks bail before arrest under the following circumstances. On 11-12-1993 complainant Fateh Muhammad lodged the report with Police Station Khanpur at 17-45 hours alleging that some time prior to this incident, there was a fight between Muhammad Pahore and applicant No.l Master Dur Muhammad Pahore and Muhammad Pahore had reported the, matter with the police against applicant No.l Master Dur Muhammad Pahore at the same police station and in that case complainant Fateh Muhammad was a witness of Muhammad Pahore. According to the complainant, he was being compelled by applicant No.l Master Dur Muhammad not to give evidence in the above case or to face dire consequences. It is further alleged in the report that on the day of incident the complainant was going to the link road from Parko Company to Rahimabad at about 16-00 hours and when he reached near the house of Sachal Pahore he happened to meet Jhangal son of Sajan and Soomar son of Muhammad (who are .the prosecution witnesses in the present case) and just when the three met, accused persons appeared at the scene (1) Dur Muhammad, (2) Dinoo and (3) Mooso armed with guns and (4) Khawand Bux, (5) Hazaro (6) Mithal and (7) Sadoro armed with Lathis. Applicant No.l challenged the complainant as to why he had not agreed not to give evidence against him (applicant No.l) and threatened him with immediate death and then all the three gun-bearers fired at the complainant who received injuries. All the accused managed to escape from the scene of offence. The complainant then went to the police station and lodged the report. All the seven accused had applied for bail before arrest in the Court of Sessions Judge, Shikarpur and the Sessions Judge vide order, dated 6-1-1994 granted pre-arrest bail to the four co-accused who were armed with Lathis and who were not alleged to have taken part in the commission of the offence, but rejected the bail of the present three applicants on the ground that they were all armed with guns and evidence against them is that they had fired at the complainant. Thereafter the present bail application has been moved in this Court.

2. Learned counsel of the applicants relies upon an unreported order, dated 31-3-1991 in Criminal Bail Application No.125 of 1991 in which the accused, against whom the allegation was that he had fired a gunshot at the left leg of complainant Muhammad Alam who had sustained simple injury, was considered eligible to the grant of bail. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Meeran Bux v. State P L D 1989 SC 347 which was a case under section 302, P.P.C. and the allegation against Meeran Bux was that a gunshot injury had been caused by him to the deceased in the leg and this injury, as per post-mortem report, was neither fatal nor was caused on the vital part of the body and was declared to be simple and in view of this factual position Miran Bux was considered entitled to bail and the order of the High Court, whereby his pre-arrest bail earlier granted by the Court of Sessions had been cancelled, was set aside and he was again granted pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel points out that there is no deceased in the present case, that the complainant had received 7 injuries as per medico-legal report No.456/93, dated 13-12-1993 1 given by the Medical Officer, Rural Health Centre, Khanpur and all these injuries are on non-vital parts of the body like right forearm, left upper arm,' lower one-third portion of left leg, left foot, right foot, right leg and right foot A and argued that in the light of the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in the above cited judgment, the applicants are also entitled to pre-arrest bail. Learned AA.-G. opposes the bail application but I am inclined to agree with the submissions made by learned counsel of the applicant that on the basis of the facts of the present case and in the light of the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in the above cited judgments, the applicants are entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants is accordingly confirmed. The applicants are however, expected to cooperate with the Investigating officer and appear before him as an when called failing which it shall be open to the prosecution to apply to the Court for appropriate orders.

3. N.H.Q./D-121/K Pre-arrest bail allowed.