2021 PLP 146 (YLRN)

ALI BAIG, J.

Having failed to get concession of bail from the court of the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit, the petitioner has now approached to this Court seeking his release on bail in case FIR No. 38/2020 dated 19-03-2020, registered under sections 324/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Jutial Gilgit.

2. The allegations levelled by the complainant in the FIR against the petitioner/accused are that on 19-03-2019, at about 16;00 hours, some altercation/ quarrel was taken place between brother of complainant and principal accused namely Rashid son of Javed Iqbal during a match. The principal accused caused stab injuries to the victim while the present petitioner caught hold/overpowered the victim with intention to murder him. Accordingly, the victim sustained injuries. The occurrence was witnessed by Hamid Hussain, Bilal Hussain, Hafeez-ur-Rehman etc.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that section 324, P.P.C. does not attract to the case of petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that motive behind the occurrence has not been disclosed in the FIR and no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the occurrence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that eye-witnesses, whose names have been disclosed in the FIR, are close relatives of the complainant and they have falsely implicated the petitioner in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that no recovery has been effected from petitioner; hence, case of the petitioner requires further inquiry and petitioner is entitled for concession of bail.

4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the petitioner is directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR and eye-witnesses have witnessed the occurrence. The learned Deputy Advocate General has further contended that offence under section 324, P.P.C. falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and Medico Legal Report also support the prosecution version; hence, petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance perused the available record.

6. From perusal of record, it transpires that petitioner/ accused is directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role and offence under section 324, P.P.C. falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Three eye-witnesses have also witnessed the occurrence and they have fully implicated the petitioner in this case. Thus prima facie the petitioner has participated in the occurrence and facilitated the principal accused in commission of crime, although he did not inflict injury to the deceased. During course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed an affidavit of one Rizwanullah son of Hamza Khan resident of Minawar, wherein, he has stated that the present petitioner had taken the victim to hospital. Mere filing of an affidavit by an individual would not attract the expression of further inquiry. In a case like this, it should be left to the trial court to determine the evidentiary value of such evidence during trial. In this connection, reference is made to the reported judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, PLD 1990 Supreme Court 83.

7. For what has been discussed above. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail. Consequently, this bail petition is hereby dismissed. File. SA/43/GB Bail declined.