2006 PLP 1238 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.

Petitioner was refused post-arrest bail by the learned Magistrate on 3-3-2005 and by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 17-3-2005 in case registered against him vide F.I.R. No.330, dated 24-11-2004 under sections 324/109/ 34, P.P.C. with Police Station, Malka Hanns, District Pakpattan Sharif. He has now filed the instant petition for the same relief.

2. Charge against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused while armed with a rifle assaulted the complainant and injured his right leg besides causing butt blow on his left knee. Petitioner was arrested on 31-1-2005 and after remaining on physical remand has since been remitted to judicial lock-up.

3. It was contended that petitioner is innocent and has been involved in false case out of malice/animosity of the complainant/ police. It was further submitted that as per story in the F.I.R. petitioner was allegedly equipped with a rifle, but during his remand .12 bore gun was recovered from him, which negatively reflected on prosecution version. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is only one fire-arm injury on the person of the complainant which shows that the petitioner did not repeat the fire, hence he had no intention to kill him. Refusing the medical report, wherein bone fracture of right leg, of the complainant was reported, it was asserted that the injured in spite of repeated directions did not appear before the Medical Board and the presumption is that there is no fracture of his bone. It was also argued that petitioner was a previous non-convict and in view of provisions of section 337-N(ii), P.P.C. there is no probability of his conviction, hence he may be released on bail.

4. Bail was opposed with the arguments that the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. with specific attribution of causing fire-arm injury to the complainant. It was further submitted that the Investigating Officer has opined that in place of butt of the gun a hanger has been affixed and the barrier of the gun being short gives a look of rifle, hence petitioner cannot take benefit or misdescription in the F.I.R. or from the fir-arm recovered from him.

5. I have minutely considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the police record with their assistance. Petitioner has been specifically named with attribution of fire-arm injury on the leg of the complainant which resulted in fracture of his bone during daylight occurrence, there is no probability of his false implication especially when he has not pointed out any reason for such act by the complainant. Since deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage is not permissible under law, lapse on part of the injured to appear before the Medical Board will be considered by the trial Court after recording of evidence. Petitioner led to recovery of fire-arm weapon used by him in the occurrence which has been explained by the Investigating Officer of having look of a rifle. Besides it, prosecution is equipped with sufficient incriminating evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. Petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail as the challan of the case has already been submitted and is ripe for trial.

6. For the reasons noted above, no case for bail could be made out, hence this petition being devoid of force, is dismissed. H.B.T./M-1280??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.