2026 PLP 521 (MLD)

Raja Shakeel Ahmad, J.

Through the instant petition filed under section 497, Cr.P.C, the petitioner/accused seeks his post arrest bail by setting aside the judgment/order dated 31-01-2025 passed by the learned vacation Sessions Judge Gilgit wherein the learned vacation Sessions Judge Gilgit dismissed the bail application of the petitioner/accused by declining bail. Being aggrieved from the judgment/order passed by the learned vacation Sessions Judge Gilgit, the petitioner/accused filed the instant petition for his post arrest bail which had been allowed vide my short order dated 24/02/2025.

2. Precise facts of the case as per contents of the FIR are that, the complainant submitted a written complaint before the SHO PS Juglote for lodging FIR against the accused stating that, on 28-07-2024, the petitioner/accused along with other nominated accused opened fire on the complainant and his son with contention to kill them. Hence, Police lodged the FIR No. 43/2024 under sections 324, 500, 341 and 147/34, P.P.C against the present petitioner/accused and other co-accused.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner/accused contended that the petitioner/accused is student of NUML University, and he is innocent, law abiding citizen and has falsely been implicated in the instant case and there is no any incriminating evidence against the petitioner/accused. The counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that the allegation against the petitioner/accused is fabricated, concocted and based on presumptions which require further inquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused argued that the complainant has lodged FIR against the petitioner/accused and co-accused namely Irshad Ahmed, Ali Ejaz, Salman and scribed the role against Irshad Ahmed for ineffective firing but the Police have released the one Irshad Ahmed under section 169, Cr.P.C which make the case doubtful and needs further inquiry into the matter and same rule of consistency is applied to the petitioner/accused. The learned counsel further contended that no role has been scribed against the present petitioner/accused in the instant case and the sections 341, 500, 147, P.P.C are bail able while section 324, P.P.C does not attract in the case to the extent of the petitioner as such the petitioner is malafidely implicated in the instant FIR for ulterior motives. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused relied on following case laws to strengthen his arguments: Sajjad Hussain v. State 2021 YLR Note 150 2020 MLD 1187 2018 MLD 724 2020 YLR Note 147 2019 MLD 724 2022 YRL 2082 GB Chief Court. Lastly the counsel for the petitioner/accused prayed for the acceptance of the petition by granting bail to the petitioner/accused.

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the counsel for the complainant opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioner/accused and contended that the petitioner/accused is directly nominated in the FIR and the sections mentioned in the FIR fully attract in the case. He further contended that, the petitioner/accused has been directly nominated in promptly lodged FIR and bail applications of co-accused Ijaz and Irshad have been refused and the present petitioner/accused and another co-accused namely Suleman remained absconder. The pre-arrest bail of present petitioner/accused has been also refused by this Hon'ble Court. He further contended that the statements of PWs recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C fully connect the petitioner/accused with the commission of offences and the police have also made recovery of crime weapon (30 bore pistol) from the accused/petitioner. The Addl AG and the counsel for the complainant argued that the punishment of section 324, P.P.C is ten years which is non-bailable and also falls in prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Lastly they prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have heard the arguments pro and contra at length and perused the record of the case along with relevant provision of the law, with the valuable assistance of counsel for the parties.

6. All the other offences reflected in the FIR except section 324 are bailable. Admittedly the allegation pertains ineffective aerial firing and no one had sustained injuries, as such it would be moot question for the leaned trial Court, to determine whether the allegation of attempt to murder is established in the case or not, which could be done at the time of conclusion of trial which makes the instant case of prosecution as one of further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The investigation of case is completed and the accused petitioner is behind the bar since his arrest. The accused is no more required for further investigation or any other case to the prosecution. Speedy trial is the right of the accused and is now guaranteed under the Constitution but trial of the case couldn't be witnessed any progress because complete Challan of the case is still awaited.

7. Considering all above aspects of the case I had granted bail to the accused/petitioner vide my short order dated 24/02/2025 subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One hundred thousand) with two sound and solvent local sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate at Gilgit. These are the reasons for grant of bail to the petitioner/accused.

8. The above findings are tentative in nature and the trial Court need not be influenced in any way. The trial Court may reach its own conclusions after recording evidence in case. This Petition disposed of accordingly. File. JK/22/GB ???