2015 P Cr (PLP)

SYED AFSAR SHAH, J.

Involved in case FIR No. 215 dated 29-6-2014 under sections 324/34, P.P.C. of police station City D.I. Khan, accused/petitioner Ayaz applied for his post arrest bail to the court of learned Senior Civil Judge D.I. Khan but the same was refused to him vide order dated 5-7-2014, whereafter, he took the matter to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V D.I. Khan, but with no premium to him and now he has come to this court for the same relief.

2. The allegations against the accused/petitioner as per FIR referred to above are that on 29-6-2014 at about 1500 hours, Adil, the complainant, made a report to Muhammad Salim HC in the casualty of civil hospital Dera to the effect that on the day of occurrence he along with his father Imam Bakhsh and other house inmates were present in their house when in the meanwhile accused/petitioner along with his co-accused duly armed with pistols entered into their house and started firing at them, resultantly, Imam Bakhsh, his father, was injured and fell on the ground, whereas he himself luckily escaped unhurt. Both the accused after commission of the offence fled away from the venue of crime. The occurrence in addition to the complainant is stated to have been witnessed by other inmates of the house. Motive behind the offence as stated by the complainant was dispute on women-folk. He has charged the accused/petitioner along with co-accused for commission of the offence.

3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the crime appears to have been committed by one person, but the complainant had falsely charged two persons including the accused/petitioner without specifically mentioning as to who amongst them was responsible for causing injuries to father of the complainant and that the above fact makes the case one of further inquiry entitling the accused/petitioner to the concession of bail.

4. As against that, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent and Additional Advocate General representing the State while opposing the petition for the grant of bail argued that the petitioner along with his co-accused has been charged in a promptly lodged FIR for effective firing on the father of the complainant, that there is a specific motive behind the offence and in the given circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their assistance.

6. It appears from the record available on file that in this case the occurrence took place on 29-6-2014 at 0230 hours, whereas the report has been lodged on the same date at 1500 hours. Adil is the complainant of the present case and he has charged the accused/petitioner along with his co-accused for commission of the offence. The occurrence in addition to the complainant is stated to have been witnessed by other inmates of the house, there is a specific motive behind the offence which, as stated earlier, was a dispute on women-folk. The injury on the person of Imam Bakhsh, father of the complainant, is on the vital part of his body and the mere fact that the allegations were general in nature as the injuries were not specifically attributed to either of the two accused did not make the case of the accused/petitioner one of further inquiry.

7. In view of the above, the petition for the grant of bail stands dismissed. HBT/425/P Bail refused.