2006 PLP 1230 (YLR)

SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.

The petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No.476 of 2004 under sections 324 and 34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Sharaqpur Sharif District Sheikhupura.

2. Briefly, on 27-9-2004 at 8-30 a.m. complainant's son Asif Ali was attacked by Arshad Ali and petitioner. Arshad Ali raised Lalkara and also fired with .30 bore pistol but Asif Ali escaped that fire as he ducked down. Petitioner fired with his pump-action gun which hit left leg of injured Asif Ali. The fire went through and through of the leg which was also fractured.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was arrested on 5-11-2004 and since then he is behind the bars. He also submits that F.I.R. was filed with two days delay. He further submits that complainant had not witnessed the occurrence himself. He also submits that alleged injury is reported on a non-vital part of the body. He submits that petitioner did not repeat fire and if he had intention to kill, he would have repeated the fire after seeking that first fire hit the leg of the injured.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. He has been assigned an active role as he was armed with a pump-action gun. The occurrence took place during the day, therefore, there was no chance of a mistaken identity. He also submits that statement of injured Asif Ali is supported by other witnesses who have recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. He adds that medical evidence which, prima facie, connects petitioner with the commission of offence and during course of investigation enough material has been collected against the petitioner to point that he is involved in this case. The learned counsel for the State has adopted the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant, however, she adds that injury caused to Asif Ali inured is attributed to the petitioner, therefore, he does not deserve concession of bail, even at this stage.

5. I have heard the learned counsel or the parties. The function of the Court at this stage is not to enter into a deep and detailed appreciation of evidence and facts, the Court can only take a tentative view of the record. In this regard, there is enough material on record in form of nomination in the F.I.R., medical report, statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. and on basis of the above material opinion of .the Investigating Officer. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner has committed offence alleged in the F.I.R. In view of the above, this bail application is dismissed. H.B.T./J-83/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.