2017 PLP 93 (YLR)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

By means of this petition accused/petitioner seeks bail on the charges under section 324/ 34, P.P.C. and 13 A.O. vide FIRs Nos.64/ 15 and 65/15 respectively lodged in Police Station Basin Gilgit.

2. The petitioner/accused remained unsuccessful to secure bail from the Court of learned vacation/Sessions Judge Gilgit, vide order dated 18.01.2016 as two of co-accused namely Sher Nawaz and Saleem were released on bail by the same judgment.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted at bar that the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. are not attracted in the instant case. The injury attributed to the petitioner are not on the vital part of the body and if the attributed knife injuries are admitted to have been caused then the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of Section 337F(ii), for which the punishment provided is 03 years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Further that the petitioner is first offender, no more required for the purpose of investigation and his detention in jail will not serve any useful purpose and will be burden on the Government exchequer.

4. On the other hand the learned Dy. A.G. submitted that the attack was pre-meditated and well thought as there was a clear motive of family dispute between the parties. The learned Dy.A.G. further stated that the accused/petitioner is directly charged in promptly lodged FIR, there are eye-witnesses whose names are mentioned in the FIR and in their promptly recorded statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., they implicated the present petitioner/accused along with two other co-accused. The weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner/accused and medical report also lends ample support to the story of prosecution and the petitioner/accused is not entitled for concession of bail, when over whelming evidence is available against him.

5. Having heard the learned counsel Mr. Saeed Iqbal, Advocate and Dy.A.G. Malik Sherbaz and perusal of record, it reveals that as per the medical report the petitioner/accused inflicted injuries on the non-vital parts of the body. The petitioner/ accused as per prosecution own case was facilitated by two of his co-accused and the victim was empty handed. The petitioner/ accused was in a possession to inflict more injuries or at least some injuries on some vital parts of the body, but he exercised restraint despite having full opportunities to settle his score, thus the intention to kill, which is a basic ingredient to attract the Provisions of section 324, P.P.C. is lacking. Moreover, the injuries as per medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer does not disclose that the injuries were life threatening and the injuries attributed to the petitioner/accused also does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

6. For the above reasons the case of the petitioner/accused is one of further inquiry falling under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. There is no cavil in the proposition of law that where the case becomes one of further inquiry the concession of bail though being discretionary cannot be denied on any flimsy ground rather it becomes right of an accused. For limited purpose of bail law is to be stretched in favour of accused and not in favour of prosecution.

7. The petitioner/accused is admitted to bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The petitioner/accused was admitted to bail after hearing the parties by means of a short order and these are reasons in support of my short order announced in open Court today. ZC/12/GB Bail granted.