2000 P Cr (PLP)

The petitioner stands charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 324/34, P.P.C., vide: F.I.R. No.569, dated 17-7-1999 registered at Police Station, Shabqadar, Tehsil and District Charsadda.

2. After having failed to obtain bail from the lower forums, the petitioner has now approached this Court for the redress of his grievance stating that he is innocent, falsely charged and, therefore, entitled to be enlarged on bail.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner present and heard. The available record perused.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show anything to suggest, even remotely, that the complainant has falsely charged the petitioner for having fired at him effectively. It was for this reason that the lower forums have refused to enlarge him on bail vide: their orders dated 27-7-1999 and 13-8-1999 respectively.

5. A perusal of the material placed on file, including the statements of the P.Ws. recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. would reveal that prima facie the petitioner is connected with the commission of the offence charged with and the conclusion drawn by the lower forums in their judgments do not suffer from any illegality or legal infirmity. There is, therefore, hardly any need to interfere with the same.

6. It way be pointed out that the mere possibility of recording different view on the basis of the available record would not be a sufficient ground for interference. Interference would, however, be justified only when there is non-appreciation of evidence, collected by the Investigating Officer, which may .lead to grave miscarriage of justice or where the order of the Lower Court is absolutely artificial which might create shocking impression on d person with ordinary prudence or where there is overwhelming evidence. collected by the Investigating Officer, which might lead to the irresistible conclusion, regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence charged with.

7. In this case, admittedly, the occurrence took place at day time and the complainant charged the petitioner for having effectively fired at him injuring him on the vital part of his body. The First Information Report was promptly lodged against him and, therefore, the question of false implication/substitution, for the time being, does not arise. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to throw any light on the motive for which the petitioner might have been charged falsely. In the circumstances, I am of the view that he has been rightly refused bail by he lower Courts. Beside this it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Ijaz Ali Khan v. The State 1968 SCMR 1168 that:

"The petitioner who is charged with the offence of murder has been refused bail by the Court below from which he now seeks leave to appeal. On examining the facts appearing in the order of the learned Judge in the High Court we are inclined to the view that the conditions laid down in section 497, Cr.P.C. for refusing bail to the petitioner were amply fulfilled in this case. The petition is dismissed.

8. This petition for bail in the circumstances does not merit, consideration and is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./488/P Bail refused.