2019 P Cr (PLP)

RAJA SAJJAD AHMAD KHAN, J.

Through the captioned revision petition, the accused-petitioner seeks bail after arrest, which was declined to him by District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli vide its order dated 09.11.2018.

2. Brief facts forming background of the instant revision petition are that on the complaint of respondent No.2 a case under FIR No.251/18 in offences under sections 504, 341, 337/A, F and 336, A.P.C. was registered against the accused petitioner and another at Police Station, Kotli. The Police arrested the accused petitioner. On 27.06.2018, he applied for bail before Additional Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Court No.1, Kotli, who after hearing arguments, rejected the application through order dated 30.06.2018. Feeling aggrieved, the accused-petitioner moved another bail application before District Criminal Court, Kotli which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 06.07.2018. Against the aforesaid order he filed a revision petition before this Court which also met the same fate vide order dated 30.08.2018. In second round after recording the evidence of two prosecution witnesses he again applied for bail before Additional Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Court No.1, Kotli which was rejected vide order dated 29.10.2018. Feeling dissatisfied from the aforesaid order of the trial Court, the accused petitioner preferred an application for bail after arrest before District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli which was declined to him vide impugned order dated 09.11.2018, hence this revision petition.

3. Raja Javed Akhtar, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner reiterated the arguments already mentioned in the petition and contended that petitioner is an innocent person who has not committed an offence as he is not ascribed any specific role of causing injuries to any person with any weapon. He further argued that the accused-petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than five months. After completion of investigation, challan has been submitted before the competent Court and evidence of two prosecution witnesses has been recorded meaning thereby that accused-petitioner is no more required for further investigation. There is lot of contradiction present in the statement of complainant which makes the prosecution story highly doubtful and law is well settled that benefit of doubt arising in the prosecution story even at bail must goes in favour of accused. He also argued that bail could not be withheld as a punishment.

4. Conversely, Sardar Mazhar Iqbal, the learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of State and Malick Shahnawaz, Advocate vehemently contended that the offences falls under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He further contended that it is no ground that the accused-petitioner is behind the bars for last five months. He zealously contended that accused-petitioner while blocking the way of complainant hit fist blows at his mouth and injured him and this fact is supported from the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. and medico-legal report pertaining to the victim. The statements of complainant and other witnesses recorded before the trial Court has strengthen the prosecution version. Both the learned counsel defended the impugned order on all counts and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. In support of arguments the learned counsel relied upon 2002 SCMR 1370, 2001 MLD 287, 2010 YLR 1570 and 2013 YLR 1239.

5. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and have gone through the record of the case with due care.

6. It may be mentioned here that in the first round both the Courts below and this Court refused to grant bail to the accused petitioner. In the second round after recording the evidence of two prosecution witnesses the petitioner again applied for bail on fresh ground, however the Courts below again refused grant bail to him. Normally this Court does not interfere with the discretion exercised and concurrent findings of the Court below, unless the bail order is perverse, arbitrary or against the settled principles governing bail matters.

7. While dealing with bail matters it is basic law that if there appear reasonable grounds to connect the accused person with an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or 10 years, then he shall not be released on bail. In the present case, from perusal of statements of prosecution witnesses it appears that no material contradiction was found present in the same and there are reasonable grounds, i.e, FIR statements of witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., medical report and statements of P.Ws recorded before the trial Court, which prima facie connect the accused petitioner with alleged offences come in the Prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail at this stage. It may be observed that mere recording of statements of two prosecution witnesses is no ground for grant of bail. In view of the above, finding no force in the instant revision petition, it is hereby dismissed. SA/2/Sh.C.(AJ&K) Bail refused.