2017 PCrLJN 40

MUJAHID Versus State

Citation2017 PCrLJN 40

CourtLahore High Court

Judge(s)Aslam Javed Minhas

ORDER

ASLAM JAVED MINHAS, J.--- Mujahid, Muhammad Shehbaz, Zahid Majid and Kamran, petitioners seek their pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.439/2015 dated 27.06.2015 registered under sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-F(v), 148 and 149, P.P.C., registered with Police Station New Multan, District Multan.

2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioners, as per FIR is that the petitioners along with their co-accused, in furtherance of their common intention and armed with their respective weapons assaulted upon the complainant party due to which, two persons were injured.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. Perusal of record reflects that the petitioners are nominated in the FIR. They assaulted upon the complainant party while armed with lethal weapons i.e. Churri. Their criminal intention, is very much clear which resulted injuries caused on the persons of Adeel and Salman, injured. Though, the offence, with which the petitioners have been charged do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure yet concession of pre-arrest bail is meant for innocent persons who prima facie prove their innocence and mala fide of the complainant or ulterior object of the local police. Interpretation of section 498, Cr.P.C. depicts that the right of pre-arrest bail is limited to exceptional and rare cases which are based on mala fides/enmity or where no offence to have been committed on the bare reading of FIR. This fact has also been interpreted by the Hon'able Apex Court of the Country in the case reported as Muhammad Azam v. The State [1996 SCMR 71]. Medico-legal Reports of the injured persons are on record to support the said accusation. The Investigating Officer, in his investigation, has declared the petitioners guilty. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to show any mala fide or ulterior object of the poling, due to which, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.

5. For the reasons mentioned supra, the petitioner is not entitled for the extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the bail petition in hand is hereby dismissed.

HBT/M-18/L Bail refused.