1989 P Cr (PLP)

Mian Abbas Ahmad for Petitioner, Altaf Ibrahim for Respondents. Javed Masood for the State. Mukhtar Ali, petitioner herein, had a land dispute with Rana Anwar, respondent. On the fateful day at about noon time, it was his turn to irrigate the land with canal water. He alongwith his nephew Muhammad Akram who carried his licensed gun went together in order to have a round of the watercourse which runs close to the house of the said respondent. When they passed near respondent's house. He (respondent) alongwith Ghulam Rasool (respondent) raised Lalkara and tired at them. Both Mukhtar Ali, complainant/petitioner and his nephew Muhammad Akram ran for their life towards the nearby garden to take cover. Muhammad Akram taking a position resorted to counter‑firing. Mukhtar Ali petitioner was however, chased by the two respondents and Rana Anwar getting closer to him fired at him from behind thereby causing gunshot wound on the back of Mukhtar Ali petitioner. The police hearing about the firing incident reached the spot and picked up Mukhtar Ali petitioner/complainant lying injured near a water‑course and took him to the hospital. Three gunshot injuries are noted by the doctor on his person whereunder two ribs had been found broken, therefore, the injuries were declared grievous.

2. Both the respondents were arrested and learned Additional Sessions Judge granted them bail observing that existence of gun with the complainant and his presence with other near the house of his opponent do not rule out the contention of the respondent i.e., the petitioner had attacked him. Feeling aggrieved thereby the instant petition has been filed for cancelling their bail. Petitioner's learned counsel has abandoned his prayer to cancel bail of Ghulam Rasool but pressed this petition qua Rana Anwar, respondent, only saying that since he is responsible for causing grievous gunshot injury, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of concession of bail. Learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned order. He stated that a cross‑complaint has been filed so it is yet to be determined as to which party was really the aggressor, hence bail was rightly granted to the respondents.

5. I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. It may be mentioned that respondents' learned counsel has not produced any copy of the order summoning the petitioner or his party men as accused in the private cross- complaint. He is rather not sure if any person has been summoned as accused in the said complaint. Admittedly, nobody from the respondent side was injured at the time of occurrence. On the contrary, the complainant/petitioner suffered grievous gunshot injury on his back at the hands of respondent No.

2. Locale of the injury suggests that he was fired at from behind obviously when he was not posing any threat whatsoever to harm the assailant/respondent. Therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge's observation that the possibility of attack by the complainant on the respondent, could not be ruled out, does not prima facie appear to be well‑founded. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the respondent being guilty of committing offence under section 307, P.P.C. did not deserve to be released on bail, therefore, I hereby cancel bail granted to him by Additional Sessions Judge. He shall be taken into custody and committed to judicial lock‑up during the pendency of the trial. SA./M‑1065/L Bail cancelled.