2020 P Cr (PLP)

CH. KHALID YOUSAF, J.

The captioned revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 18.09.2019, passed by District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli, whereby bail after arrest was declined to him. The facts briefly stated are that Abdul Khaliq, complainant, lodged a report at Police Station City, Kotli on 26.08.2019, alleging therein that the complainant was present at his shop situated in Sarhota Bazar, accused Yameen, the landlord of the shop came there and told the complainant that he will remove the Almirahs/planks of the shop thereupon they have exchanged harsh words. It is further alleged that accused Yameen went away and came back at 04:30 p.m. holding a dagger, as he reached at the shop and inflicted injury with dagger above the navel in abdomen of the complainant with intention to kill him due to which the complainant seriously injured and the accused made his good escape from the spot. On this report, a case under sections 324, 337/F, A.P.C. was registered, against Yameen at Police Station Kotli on 26.08.2019. During investigation and after obtaining medical report section 337/D, A.P.C. has been added. The accused-petitioner was apprehended who moved post-arrest bail application before Additional Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Kotli No.II on 16.09.2019 whereby the bail was rejected on 18.09.2019. Thereupon, the accused-petitioner moved post-arrest bail application before District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Kotli on 26.09.2019 which also met the same fate vide its order dated 01.10.2019, hence this revision petition. Sh. Noman Akhter, Advocate the learned counsel for accused-petitioner, submitted that accused-petitioner is an innocent person who is behind bars for two months. Learned counsel averred that single injury is attributed to accused-petitioner and punishment for offence 337/D, A.P.C. has been provided in section 337/N-11 is Daman/Arsh and there is no concept of punishment of imprisonment therefore; does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further contended that dagger has been recovered on 09.09.2019 but same has not been sent for chemical examination. He further agitated that investigation has been completed and challan has been submitted before the court of competent jurisdiction and the Courts below did not consider this aspect of the case while dismissing his application. The learned Counsel prayed for acceptance of revision petition and cited the following case law in support of his arguments:-

1. PLD 1999 Lah. 277 2. 2006 SCR 55

3. PLD 2009 Lah. 312 4. 2012 PCr.LJ 1560 [Peshawar] 5. 2014 PCr.LJ 1464 [Balochistan] Raja Abd-ur-Raoof Khan, Advocate the learned Counsel for complainant-respondent No.2, contended that accused-petitioner inflicted injury at the abdomen and the complainant seriously injured. Learned counsel further contended that learned counsel for accused-petitioner failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order and as such no fresh ground has brought on record. He further contended that the complainant due to this injury cannot take normal/routine food. He further contended that accused-person is nominated in FIR and punishment for injury attributed to him under section 337/D, A.P.C. is up to 10 years. He further contended that statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. and medical report fully corroborated the version of the complainant therefore; the accused-petitioner does not deserve any concession of bail. The learned counsel finally prayed for dismissal of revision petition and placed his reliance on case law reported as "Subedar Major (R) Zulfiqar Ali Shah v. Abid Shah and another" [2018 PCr.LJ 270, Supreme Court (AJ&K)]. Ejaz Ahmed Bhatti, the learned AAG appearing on behalf the State fully supported the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 and submitted that the accused-petitioner came back and inflicted injury with intention to murder the complainant. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the State counsel and perused the record with utmost care. At bail stage a tentative assessment of the record has to be taken into consideration and deeper scrutiny of the evidence is neither permissible nor desirable at bail stage. The allegation against the accused-petitioner is that he injured the complainant with knife. Perusal of record reveals that accused-petitioner injured the complainant and this stance of the complainant has been fully corroborated by the medical report and statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. which prima-facie, connects him with the commission of alleged offences. It is not a case of sudden provocation as the accused-petitioner came to shop where some harsh words were exchanged between them, thereafter he went away and came back having knife with him and attacked on the complainant which shows his intention. In such like cases where the act of accused with intention of launching a murderous attack upon the victim; the bail cannot be granted. The aforesaid view finds support from a case reported as Saghir Ahmad v. Zulfiqar Ahmad and another [2005 PCr.LJ 1284], wherein the revision petition was accepted, concession of bail was recalled and it was observed as under:- "It is also on the record that the accused fired four shots on the person of the victim but one shot only hit him directly, therefore, the intention of the accused of launching a murderous assault appears from his act and the case prima-facie falls under prohibitory clause in terms of section 497, Cr.P.C." It was further observed that:- "After examining the record and material collected by the Investigating Agency, the accused/ respondent is prima-facie connected with the commission of murderous assault and in such like cases the bail cannot be granted in haste. The impugned order lacks convincing reasons and without being guided by principles governing grant of bail, therefore, it is not sustainable." In another case titled Muhammad Bashir and 3 others v. Manzoor Ahmad Khan and another [2001 YLR 2955] the accused, who had fired at the leg of victim, sought bail on the ground that he had no intention to cause death to the victim, but the bail was not granted to him by the Apex Court and it was held as under:- "After hearing the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the view that except Muhammad Asif the other accused-appellants Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Zaman and Sikandar Hayat are prima-facie connected with the commission of offences alleged as they have been attributed a definite role. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that Muhammad Bashir, accused, inflicted injuries with is .12-bore gun on the legs of Khan Muhammad, therefore, his intention was not to commit the murder of Khan Muhammad Khan merits no consideration. This accused was armed with a .12-bore gun and he fired with his gun at Khan Muhammad Khan which incidentally hit his legs. At this stage it cannot be definitely ascertained that his intention was not to cause the death of Khan Muhammad Khan, P.W. It is also incorrect that his case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. because when the injury is caused the sentence provided under section 324 is not 10 years but life imprisonment. Similarly the other accused Muhammad Zaman and Sikandar Hayat inflicted dagger and hatchet injuries on the persons of Khurshid and Asmatullah, P.Ws. The injuries caused to the said witnesses are grievous in nature. The complainant as well as the injured prosecution witnesses fully support the version of the prosecution as mentioned in the FIR and in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C." The incriminating material collected by the police, medical report and statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. prima facie connected the accused-petitioner with the alleged offences and learned counsel for accused-petitioner failed to point out any illegality committed by the subordinate courts. So in such state of affairs I am not persuaded to grant bail to the accused-petitioner, because his commission of act itself, prima-facie, depicts his intention of launching murderous assault upon the victim. Therefore, I do not find any arbitrariness or perversity in the discretion exercised by the Courts below. The case law referred by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner is not applicable due to its distinguishable facts and circumstances. The crux of above discussion is that finding no force in the instant revision petition, it is hereby dismissed. SA/77/HC(AJ&K) Bail declined.