2021 PLP 154 (YLRN)

SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, J.

After having been booked in case FIR No.28 dated 30.03.2021 under section 324/ 34, P.P.C. Police Station Mirali, District North Waziristan, the petitioner applied for post arrest bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, North Waziristan, which was declined vide Order dated 01.06.2021. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court through the instant bail petition.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Qatali Khan reported the matter at THQ hospital, Mirali, that on the eventful day i.e. 30.03.2021 at about 12.30 hours, he along with his nephew Shams ud Din were going to their house, that when they reached Masjid Hameedullah, accused Tayib Khan and Ahmad Jan armed with Kalashnikovs appeared and started firing with intention to kill them. Resultantly, Shamd us Din was got hit and fell on the ground while he escaped unhurt luckily. Motive for the occurrence was stated to be dispute over mountains area, hence, the instant FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the parties along with learned Asstt: A.G. representing the State, were heard at length and with their valuable assistance the record was gone through.

4. While scanning the record it surfaced that the complainant along with the injured Shams ud Din were on their way back to home, when reached near Masjid Hameedullah the accused/petitioner along with co-accused duly armed with Kalashnikov emerged and started firing at them which resulted into injuries on the person of Shams ud Din. The matter was promptly reported to the local police in T.H.Q. hospital, Mirali by the complainant, with the motive a dispute over mountains/hills. Though, the victim received a single firearm injury on his body, but the same is on the vital part. An attempt was made to make the case of further inquiry as to the learned counsel for the petitioner it was hard to ascertain at this stage that whose fire shots proved affective. I cannot weigh the submission made only and only in favour of the petitioner as at this juncture the findings in favour of either side may prejudice the case. It was submitted that no bullet marks were found on the surrounding wall and that no inference can be taken, but that it was the doing of a single person. True that no bullet marks were observed nor pointed at the place of incident, but it cannot exclude the possibility that the fire shots might have missed the target, but the intention was there and it was the common intention which attracted the accused to the place of incident. True that in number of cases the concession of bail was extended, keeping in view, the number of injuries caused and the number of accused charged, but that principle applies to a case where the number of accused is exaggerated to a greater extent which is not the case in hand. The petitioner is directly charged and the matter was promptly reported which excludes the possibility of consultation and deliberation and there is no room to introduce the element of mistaken identity.

5. The commutative effect of what has been stated above leads this court nowhere, but to hold that the petitioner seems prima facie connected with the commission of the offence and the offence do not fall within the prohibitory limb of section 497 of the Cr.P.C. The instant petition being bereft of merit is dismissed as such. SA/127/P Bail declined.