2008 PLP 1358 (MLD)

SYED MUSADIQ HUSSAIN GILANI, J.

Petitioner Inayatullah, after refusal of bail by the courts below, in case F.I.R. No. 247, dated 26-10-2007, under sections 302/34, P.P.C., of Police Station Takht Nasrati, District Karak, moved the instant bail petition to this Court on different grounds.

2. The report of this case was made by Mst. Hobi Merjana complainant, to the police in the Emergency Room of the Hospital, where she had brought her injured son Fazal Rabi. According to the complainant, on 26-10-2007 at 1740 hours, she and her son were sitting on a Cot in the house, when in the meantime, Gui Sahib Shah, Noor Nawab and Inayatulah, the present petitioner, duly armed, entered the house, and all the three started firing at her son, who received fire-arm injuries on his person. The motive for the offence was a dispute on women-folk. After the occurrence, all the assailants went away. On the report of Mst. Hobi Marjana complainant, a case was registered under section, 324/34, P.P.C., but due to death of Fazal Rabi, section 324, P.P.C. was substituted by section 302, P.P.C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in this case three persons are charged for effective firing on the deceased, who had received a single injury. The medical evidence contradicted the ocular version, as well as the site plan, and 25 empties were not sent to the fire-arm Expert to find out that the same were fired from different weapons. The deceased was examined in injured condition by the Doctor, but no opinion about his condition was given. The occurrence was not seen by any independent witness, and in view of cases reported as 2003 PCr.LJ 1149 and 2002 PCr.LJ Peshawar 1062 (B), petitioner was entitled to bail.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant stressed that the ocular version was consistent with the medical evidence, as well as the site plan. The petitioner was directly charged for firing, and 25 empties, and 3 spent bullets were found on the spot, and the trial of the petitioner has already commenced. He placed reliance on cases reported as 1995 SCMR 1765 (F), 2006 PCr.LJ 184, 2005 PCr.LJ 8 and 1996 SCMR 931.

5. Similarly, learned counsel for the State supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.

6. The perusal of record would show that the petitioner was directly charged for firing at the deceased. The direct ocular evidence supported by the medial evidence is available. The trial of the petitioner is stated to have already commenced. The case is covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. A single injury on the person of the deceased, and charge of firing against three persons, is not a good ground for release of the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the instant bail petition is hereby dismissed. M.H./92/P Bail refused.