2001 P Cr (PLP)

Kh. Muhammad Ramzan for the Complainant. Muhammad Shafi for the State. The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail to respondents Nos.1 to 3 in case F.I.R. No.24 of 2001, dated 1‑2‑2001 under sections 324, 452, 148 and 149, P.P.C. with Police Station Begowala, District Sialkot on the complaint of the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the occurrence took place at about 3‑00 a.m. or the night between 31/1‑1‑2001 in which Siddique who was sleeping in the Varanda was asked that they wanted Ramzan and Asghar they should be handed over to them, otherwise they will murder him. One of the unknown accused fired 2/3 fires which hit on the neck of Muhammad Siddique father‑in‑law of the complainant and the other fire hit on the left elbow of the arm and one shot was fired by pistol .31 bore which caused the injury on the belly of Muhammad Siddique. One of the accused was armed with Kulhari and one with Khanjar. The brother‑in‑law of the petitioner Muhammad Afzal tried to catch hold of one of the accused but they ran away. Siddique was taken to Civil Hospital, Sialkot and was referred to Mayo Hospital subsequently. According to the report on the same day supplementary statement was recorded of the complainant and other eye witnesses in which they nominated respondents Nos.1 to 3 as real culprits and Razaq Ahmad respondent No.2 according to them was responsible for causing the fatal injuries on the person of Muhammad Siddique which has damaged his kidney.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the bail has been granted to respondents Nos.1 to 3 on the ground that their names were not mentioned in the F.I.R. He contends that on the same day after 10 minutes after the registration of the case the supplementary statement was made by the petitioner in which he nominated all the accused. He has further contended that Afzal and Asghar the two witnesses on the same day got recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. and mentioned the names of respondents Nos.1 to 3 as the real culprits. He further contends that the injury on the person of Siddique is very serious and the left kidney of Siddique has been seriously damaged. His statement was recorded on 15‑1‑2001 in which he alleged that the first injury has been caused due to the shot fire by Razzaq Ahmad respondent. He contends that the offences are punishable with 10 years' R.I. The respondents are not entitled to the relief which has been granted to them.

4. Learned counsel appearing‑on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 3 states that there is a delay of "16/17 days in lodging the F.I.R. The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons and the accused are closely related to the complainant side as Siddique injured and the father of the accused are brother‑in‑laws and one sister of the accused is also married to the brother -in‑law of Siddique. They are living in the village for the last 20/22 years. There was no reason to withhold their names by the complainant in the F.I.R. It has further been contended that the Additional S.P., Sialkot investigated the case and found that the occurrence has been taken place in a doubtful manner. The case according to the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 is one of further inquiry and the bail should not be cancelled on the grounds contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. Learned State Counsel has also supported the learned counsel for respondents and has stated that the bail should not be cancelled though the accused has been challaned but the case was found as doubtful by the Additional S.P.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Muhammad Siddique was seriously injured in the occurrence and one of the injuries on his person has damaged his. kidney and he remained admitted in the hospital for more than 15 days and his statement was recorded on 15‑1‑2001 when he became conscious and he nominated the accused Razzaq Ahmad as responsible for causing of fatal injury to him. He also nominated the other accused as participants of the occurrence. The injured Siddique and the accused party are very closely related to each other. There is no reason that why Siddique shall falsely involve the respondents in this case. Similarly the complainant also has no grudge to falsely implicate the respondents in this case but as the bail has been granted to the respondents except Razzaq the fatal injury has not been attributed to them the cancellation of bail in the circumstances of these two respondents will not be in the interest of justice, due to the grounds that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the names of these respondents are not mentioned in the F.I.R.

7. As far as Razzaq respondent is concerned Siddique injured in his statement who is Khalu of Razzaq has alleged that the fatal injury was due to the shot by Razzaq. The doctor found this injury dangerous to life and has found that the kidney has been damaged seriously. There is no reason that why Siddique and other witnesses have attributed fatal injury to Razzaq and how has been involved falsely. As the injury was attributed to Razzaq by the injured and the other witnesses, who are closely related to this respondent the case of Razzaq is not of further inquiry and due to the seriousness of the injury he is not entitled to the grant of bail, The learned Additional Sessions Judge has granted his bail without considering the seriousness of the injury and the close relationship inter se of the accused and the complainant party which is liable to be cancelled.

8. In view of the above discussion the bail granted to respondents Nos.1 and 3 are not cancelled but the bail granted to respondent No.2 Razzaq Ahmad is cancelled. This petition is disposed of. N.H.Q./M‑649/L Order accordingly.