2010 PLP 1316 (YLR)

IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.

Hamid Ali Shah petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.334 of 2009, dated 25-7-2009, registered under sections 324/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Malakwal District Mandi Baha-ud-Din.

2. Precise allegations against the petitioner, as per narration of the F.I.R., are that he caused injury to the wife of Khalid Pervaiz complainant with fire-arm on her knee.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner remained on physical remand but no recovery was effected from him; that according to the allegations three fire shots shoots were made by the petitioner but no empty was collected by the police from the spot; that there is contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular account as there is blackening on the injury whereas the fire according to the prosecution story has been made from 12 feet; that the prosecution story is improbable and the petitioner was declared innocent during the investigation.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant while opposing this bail application contends that the petitioner is involved in two other criminal cases of similar nature viz., F.I.R. No.81 of 2002 and F.I.R. No.188 of 2003; that in F.I.R. No.81 the petitioner caused injury to Asif Hussain with hatchet and in F.I.R. No. 188 the petitioner made murderous assault on Asif Hussain with fire-arm weapon; that the complainant appeared before the learned trial Court along with his witnesses but the case was adjourned due to the non-production of the accused from jail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. As the petitioner is single accused and according to the M.L.R. the fire-arm injury has been received by Farkhanda wife of the complainant as per the story narrated in the F.I.R. which is sufficiently supported by the medical evidence and there is no chances of substitution. Even otherwise, petitioner is involved in two other criminal cases of similar nature registered in the years 2002 and 2003. The trial in the case is being delayed due to the conduct of the petitioner as the complainant appeared before the trial Court on 6-1-2010 but the petitioner was not produced from jail and due to this reason the case was adjourned. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The declaring of the petitioner innocent by the police is not a ground for the grant of bail as the petitioner is a single accused and the ipse dixit of the police is not binding on the Courts. In such circumstances. I do not find it a fit case for the grant of bail to the petitioner. The petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today. The learned counsel for the complainant undertakes that the witnesses will be produced by the complainant before the learned trial Court on the next date of hearing. H.B.T./H-6/L Bail refused.