>  Carrporate Law   >  2022 MLD 459

2022 MLD 459

2022 MLD 459
S. 498 —Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149—Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly—Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of—Petitioner had taken the plea that on the day of occurrence at 06:00 pm he left his office after biometric recording—Investigating Officer visited said place of work, from where claim of petitioner was confirmed that he was free from his duty at 06:00 pm—Crime scene, according to Investigating Officer was at a distance of 20 kilometers from the office of petitioner and in a village area—Prima facie, it appeared to be an abnormal story that petitioner within 30 minutes arrived at place of occurrence, joined his co-accused, planned and committed the crime—Strange situation arose when complainant moved an application to the SHO that due to agony he could not tell the correct time of occurrence which in fact was 07:30 pm and not 06:30 pm—Statement of complainant with regard to occurrence was recorded in hospital and was completed at 10:30 pm—Even in that statement he gave the time of occurrence as 06:30 pm—Although complainant had referred the Medico Legal Report of complainant, where he alleged the time of crime as 07:30 pm, but that document could not override the complaint recorded in hospital and the FIR—Complaint showed that it was a well drafted document where details of occurrence had been provided minutely so question of confusion or missing of memory or absence of mind or slip of tongue did not arise—Petitioner was father of co-accused, whereas another accused was his son-in-law—Taking into consideration that fact also possibility of throwing of wider net by involving maximum members of a family could not be ruled out—Mala fide and ulterior motive on the part of complainant were floating on record because of change of time of occurrence by him later on, so as to come out from the challenge thrown by petitioner—Case was fit to use the extraordinary discretion of pre-arrest bail in favour of accused-petitioner—Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to petitioner was confirmed, in circumstances