2002 PLP 932 (YLR)

Mirza Nadeem Asif for the State. Petitioners seek pre‑arrest bail in a case registered against them vide F.I.R. No.258 of 2000 under sections 324/34 and 337, P.P.C. at Police Station Liaquatpur.

2. As per F.I. R. allegations against the petitioner are that they had injured the complainant and his sister Mst. Zaibo Mai by firing with respective weapons i.e. a gun and a pistol. Earlier an application moved by the petitioners for the pre‑arrest bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Liaquatpur vide his order dated 12‑10‑2000 on merits as well as on account of non‑appearance of the petitioners. Hence the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that registration of the instant criminal cases against the petitioner is based on mala fide of the complainant as there is no litigation between the parties, civil as well as criminal. The last in the series is that of a criminal case registered upon the complaint of petitioner Muhammad Nawaz against the complainant and his father; that occurrence is alleged to have occurred at 10‑00 a.m. in a thickly populated area but no witness from the locality has supported the case of the complainant as is evident from finding of A.S.I. recorded on 30‑7‑2000; that no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence; that in the opinion of the doctor who initially examined the injured complainant and his sister, the alleged injuries are self‑inflicted and on, non‑vital part section 324, P.P.C. is not attracted to the present set of circumstances. In support of the submissions, reliance has been placed on 2000 PCr.LJ 679 and 1999 PCr.LJ 1769.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant and the State oppose the petition on the ground that element of mala fides on the part of the complainant as not established during the investigation and the S.H.O. and D.S.P found the petitioners to be guilty; that the opinion of doctor with regard to self‑inflicted injuries has been negated by a Medical Board; that the petitioners are quite influential persons which is also evident from the fact that they prevailed upon the doctor to get the opinion of their choice that the petitioners did participate in the occurrence and injured complainant and his sister; that petitioners purposely absented themselves from the learned Sessions Court at the time of disposal of their petition seeking pre‑arrest bail and no plausible justification has been brought on record in this context and that offences fall within the prohibitory clause of section

497. Cr.P.C. Reliance has been placed on 1997 P.S.C (Criminal) 136.

5. I have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties perused the record and gone through the judgments cited at the bar.

6. It could not be denied that the opinion of doctor with regard to possibility of self‑inflicted injuries with friendly hand was fully negated by a Medical Board. In the presence of finding of a Medical Board opinion of doctor, prima facie, is of the little value. It is yet to be seen that medical officer while examining the injured person at initial stage, was competent to make such an observation particularly when the injuries were caused by fire‑arm.

7. Learned counsel attempted to justify non‑appearance of the petitioners before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 12‑10‑2000 on the ground petitioner No.1 was ill, therefore, he alongwith Shaukat Ali reached the Court a little late. But such an excuse has not been substantiated any material on the record even otherwise I am not satisfied with this excuse as per their reached the Court at 9‑30 a.m. on 12‑10‑2000, and the instant petition been filed on 17‑10‑2000 this conduct of I the petitioner is alone sufficient to define the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

8. I am convinced that the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his dated 12‑10‑2000 has dismissed the bail petition of the petitioner on a appreciation of law and facts.

9. It is well‑settled that every case to be adjusted within the ambit of its circumstances and in the circumstances of the instant case I am not inclined to allow the instant petition which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1328/L Bail refused.