2007 PLP 359 (YLR)

SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.

The petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.519 of 2004 dated 14-11-2004 under sections 324 and 34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Tatleyali, District Gujranwala.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Maulana Manzoor Ahmad submitted application before police that on 14-11-2004 at about 3-30 p.m. when his son, Saif-ur-Rehman came out of mosque after `Asar' prayers Imran son of Sanaullah armed with pistol .30 bore, Muhammad Riaz son of Sanaullah armed with .44 bore pistol and Sanaullah son of Rehmat armed with repeater gun .12 bore raised 'Lalkara' and Imran fired at him (Saif-ur-Rehman) with his pistol which hit him on his left foot. Muhammad Riaz and Sanaullah also made firing. Muhammad Malak son of Rehmat Ullah and Faisal Sultan Bhatti also reached the spot and tried to rescue Saif-ur-Rehman but accused also fired at them. On his application present case was registered against the accused and petitioner was accordingly arrested on 3-3-2005. Hence this bail application.

3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that injury attributed to the petitioner is on the foot of Saif-ur-Rehman P.W., therefore, prima facie offence under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. is made out against him. He contended that injury is not on the vital part and that petitioner had not repeated the fire-shot, therefore, his case is that of further enquiry. He has argued that petitioner had been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. He has further argued that petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 3-3-2005 but trial has not commenced so far, therefore, he deserves concession of bail.

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State as well as complainant have opposed this application on the grounds that petitioner is named in F.I.R.; that pistol was recovered from him during investigation; that he did not join the investigation for a period of four months, hence absconded for a considerable period and that he was on interim bail but he caused injuries on the person of Muhammad Fayyaz (nephew of Muhammad Malak P.W. Of this case) with a pistol whereupon case F.I.R. No.525 dated 18-11-2004 was registered against him at the instance of Muhammad Malak.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. The petitioner is named in F.I.R. The allegation against him is that he along with his co-accused attacked Saif-ur-Rehman (complainant's son) and caused injury on his person with his pistol. It is day time occurrence. During investigation pistol was recovered from him. As stated above, petitioner was on interim bail but he caused injuries on the person of Muhammad Fayyaz (nephew of Muhammad Malak, P.W. of this case) and case F.I.R. No.525 dated 18-11-2005 was registered against him. The S.H.O. who is present in Court states that petitioner has been challaned in the said case. It shows that petitioner is a desperate person. He did not join investigation for a considerable period and there is no explanation for the same. The challan has already been submitted in Court. In these circumstances I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner and application brought by him is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./I-27/L Bail refused.