2008 PLP 2522 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD AKRAM QURESHI, J.

Hameed Ullah, petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 119 of 2007 dated 25-4-2007 registered under sections 302/324, 427/109, 337-F-(i)/ 337-L(ii), 148/149 P.P.C. at Police Station City Wazirabad District Gujranwala.

2. Precise allegations against the petitioner are that he was armed with Kalashnikov and caused firearm injury on the left side of the back of chest of Pervaiz Akhtar deceased.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was absolute innocent and that the allegations contained against him are false and incorrect and that the deceased received various injuries on his person. He developed septicemia and due to the infection in the wounds he died. He also states that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are not direct result of the death. During investigation, he was found innocent and placed in Column No.2 of the challan. He further states that in view of the opinion of Investigating Officer the case of the petitioner falls within the domain of subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. He submits that the Courts have always given due weight to the opinion of the Investigating Officer while considering the question of bail. He also submits that reasonable grounds do not exist to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under sections 302/324, 427/109, 337-F(i)/337-L(ii), 148/149, P.P.C. He while relying upon Jalal v. The State 1999 YLR 1493 and Daterdino and 3 others v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 572 states that the commencement of trial is no ground to the refusal of bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is named in the most promptly lodged F.I.R. It is a day time occurrence. The accused did not pay respect to the Court premises and resorted to firing and committed Qatl of two persons. According to his own plea he was present at a distance of about 100 yards from the place of occurrence; that on the strength of the said plea of the police has declared him innocent that the said plea of alibi is not worth reliance; that the petitioner has fired at Pervaiz Iqbal deceased hitting on the vital part of his body and that the deceased died because of the complications created by the injuries inflicted by the petitioner and his co-accused. They also state that both the deceased received numerous injuries indicating that the accused were desperate and that all the eye-witnesses have specifically named the petitioner and considered him responsible for the infliction of injury on the vital part of the body of Pervaiz Akhtar deceased. They further submit that mere fact that the police has declared him innocent would not mean that he has been exonerated from the commission of offence and that in case reported as Iqbal-ur-Rehman v. The State PLD 1974 SC 83 the plea of alibi was no considered by the apex Court despite the fact the accused was placed in Column No.2 of the challan; that the case of the petitioner is of similar nature and that keeping in view the above mentioned judgment of the apex Court, the petitioner is also not entitled to the grant of bail. They further submit that the trial has commenced and the petitioner remained proclaimed offender in this case and in case he is allowed bail, he will again abscond and it will hinder the progress in the trial. They have informed the Court that two witnesses have already been recorded by the learned trial Court.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and going through the record, this Court finds that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Specific role of firing on the vital part of body of the deceased is attributed to him. Both the deceased received numerous injuries on their persons. Conduct of the petitioner was desperate who did not care that he was committing the offence within the premises of Court of Session. Ipsi dixit of the police is not binding upon the Courts and that reasonable grounds exist to believe that the petitioner has committed offences under sections 302/324, P.P.C. Trial has commenced and there is every likelihood that it may be concluded shortly.

5. In view of the above, the present petition fails and it is dismissed. Before parting with the order, this Court considers it proper to direct the learned trial Court to expedite the disposal of the trial and conclude it within a period of two months of the receipt of the order of this Court. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner may approach this Court afresh. H.B.T./H-12/L Bail refused.