1999 PLP 2248 (YLR)

2. She reported the matter to the Police in Kalu Khan Hospital, where she had been taken for medical aid/treatment. Her report was reduced into the form of a Murasila which was then sent to Police Station, Kalu Khan, Tehsil and District Swabi, where F. I. R. No.373 was registered under section 324/34, P.P.C. on 10‑4‑1999.

3. The petitioners‑accused after their arrest moved an application before the Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Swabi (Mr. 1?jaz Khan) for bail who rejected the same vide his order, dated 24‑4‑1999.

4. The petitioners then approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Swabi (Sahibzada Khurshid Ahmad) for bail who refused to enlarge them on bail vide his order, dated 8‑5‑1999.

5. Hence this petition

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, three in number, have been falsely charged in the present case so as to pursuade/pressurize the husband‑petitioner No.1 to divorce the complainant wife. According to him the complainant had received only one fire‑arm injury and that too simple in nature for which she has charged three persons. In other words she has tried to rope in all the petitioners for no rhyme or reason.

7. He next contends that there is a delay in filing the F.I.R. which would establish, beyond doubt, that the F.I.R. was registered after due deliberations/consultations. According to him no empty was recovered from the scene of occurrence as has been mentioned in the site‑plan. He further submits that the father of the complainant, the only eye‑witness in this case, has not been examined, therefore, the prosecution case has become highly doubtful and thus the petitioners‑accused are entitled to be released on bail.

8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate‑General for the respondent/State submits that a perusal of the F.I.R. would show that the occurrence took place in the morning at "Azan Wela" and that the complainant, who had received two injuries, one on her right hand and the other one on her abdomen, was immediately rushed to Hospital Kalu Khan. It was there that she reported the matter to A.S.I. Bakht Bahadur Khan, in the presence of her father, Hakeem Khan, alleging that she was married to petitioner‑accused No.1 about 4 years back but had no children from him. She had further alleged that the relations between her and petitioner‑accused No.1 were strained and that, therefore, she had left his house and was residing in her father's house for the last 3 years. She also alleged that she had instituted a suit for the dissolution of her marriage against petitioner‑accused No.1 which was still pending disposal. According to her the petitioner was very much annoyed with her on this score and on the eventful day he, alongwith his brother petitioner‑accused No.2 and one Sadaf petitioner No.3, came to their house, duly armed, and fired at her in order to kill her, as a result of which she received injuries on her right hand and abdomen.

9. The motive for the commission of the offence has been given to be the strained relations between the complainant wife and the husband petitioner‑accused No. 1.

10. Admittedly the present case was registered on the basis of a Murasila which was sent by the A.S. I. Bakht Bahadur Khan, from the hospital on the basis of which F. I. R. No.373 was registered at Police Station Kalu Khan, Swabi on 10‑4‑1999.

11. The mere fact that after having received the injuries the complainant- respondent No. l was taken to the hospital for medical aid/treatment and where she made the report plausibly explained the delay, if any, in reporting the matter to Police. In my opinion the delay is not noticeable as the occurrence took place at "Subah Azan Wela" whereas the matter was reported to the Police at 5‑30 a.m. in the hospital. The motive for the commission of the offence as given in the F.I.R. and that is that the complainant/wife was residing in her father's house and had instituted a suit, for the dissolution of her marriage, against her husband, petitioner- accused No. l seems to be quite convincing.

12. Admittedly the lady wife (complainant) has received two injuries and therefore it does not stand to reason that she would let off the real culprits and instead involve the petitioners for attempting at her life. Resultantly the question of involving her husband falsely in this case seems to me to be quite remote.

13. In the circumstances and without going deep into the merits of the case, I am of the view that reasonable grounds do exist for believing that petitioner‑accused No. l (husband) is connected with the commission of the crime charged with and that he is not entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly his prayer for bail is rejected.

14. However, the case of the other two petitioners‑accused stands on different footing. Apparently they have no motive to have attempted at the life of the lady complainant. It would be seen at the time of trial as to whether or not they had played any role or helped petitioner‑accused No.1 in the commission of the offence and if so to what extent. Presently, in my opinion, reasonable grounds do not exist for believing that they are connected with the commission of the offence charged with and as such their case is that of further inquiry. Their prayer for bail is accordingly accepted.

15. Petitioner‑accused No.2 namely Zahir son of Jalander and petitioner‑accused No.3 namely Sadaf son of Sohbat shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs.One lac only) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar/Deputy Registrar of this Court.

16. The Additional Registrar/Deputy Registrar shall see that the sureties are respectable persons, are men of means having sufficient property in their names and hail from the settled areas of District Swabi. Attested copies of their property documents/identity cards shall be obtained for record. N.H.Q./422/P