2007 PLP 409 (YLR)

M. BILAL KHAN, J.

Muhammad Sarwar son of Muhammad Ashraf, who is complainant in case F.I.R. No.56 dated 6-7-2005, registered with Police Station Rayya Khass, District Narowal, for offences under section 324, 148, 149 read with section 109 P.P.C., by filing this petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. seeks cancellation of post-arrest bail allowed to Muhammad Riaz son of Maqbool Ahmad (respondent No.1), by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal vide order dated 29-9-2005.

2. Precisely the allegation against Muhammad Riaz (respondent No.1), according to the F.I.R., was that he while armed with a rifle .8 MM, along with his co-accused Fayyaz, armed with a rifle .8 MM, Ghulam Mustafa, Yasar, armed with rifles .244 bores and two unknown persons, armed with Kalashnikovs, initially raised Lalkara to the effect that they would teach a lesson to the complainant party for not vacating the land and then he (respondent No.1) fired a straight shot with his rifle hitting Muhammad Irshad, brother of the complainant, on the left side of his chest; thereafter, his co-accused Fayyaz and Ghulam Mustafa made fire shots through their respective weapons, which struck on the right arm of Muhammad Irshad; the two unknown persons while raising Lalkaras that if anybody came near, would be done to death, kept on making aerial firing with their respective weapons.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record brought by Javed Hussain, S.-I. as also the impugned order dated 29-9-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

4. It has been observed that respondent No.1 had been duly nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of causing fire-arm injury to Irshad P.W. on his chest. It is amazing that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had allowed post-arrest bail to respondent No.1 in an offence attracting the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and that too after two and a half months of his arrest only on the ground that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had opined that respondent No.1 had used his gun in retaliation, when the complainant party had made firing on the accused side and that it was yet to be determined as to who was the aggressor. The observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the petitioner had not repeated the fire-shot and, therefore, there was doubt about his intention to kill, is absurd and hilarious to say the least, inasmuch as the petitioner had allegedly fired straight at his victim with 8 MM rifle and the fire-shot had landed on the left side of the chest. Injury No.1 recorded in the Medico-legal Report attributed to respondent No.1 was an oval wound 2 x 1 c.m. on outer side of left side of chest 8 c.m. below axilla. The exit wound has been recorded as Injury No.2 as a lacerated wound 5 x 6 c.m. on let side of back of chest in middle, 8 c.m. from midline. Is there any particular number of bullets prescribed by law to be pumped into the chest of the victim to make the intention of the attacker known? At least not to my knowledge, one can attribute such kind of a remark by a judicial officer of the rank of Additional Sessions Judge only to his naivete. A laboured attempts on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge at making the case of respondent No.1 one of further inquiry is easily discernible by a plain look at the impugned order. It is on record that the injured was in a precarious condition when he was presented before the Medical Officer at Narowal, due to which the latter had been referred to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, where he was subjected to extensive life-saving surgery. Perilous condition of the injured and his shifting to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, where he was being tended to by his kin, including the complainant explains the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in allowing bail to respondent No.1 can safely be termed has imprudent, indiscreet and irresponsible.

5. Resultantly, I allow this petition, set aside the impugned order dated 29-9-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal and cancel post-arrest bail granted to respondent No.1. He will be remitted to custody. S.M.B./M-702/L Petition accepted.