2004 PLP 431 (YLR)

Muhammad Yaqoob Khan for the Complainant/Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 19th October, 2001. The petitioner herein who is charged in a case registered against him under sections 324/34, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.128 dated 19th May, 2001, Police Station Pezu for having effectively fired at the complainant, when failed to get the concession of bail from the lower forum, moved this Court for the same.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that according to medico-legal report there is only one fire arm entry wound on the person of the complainant, which is simple in nature; that the petitioner did not repeat fire in spite of the fact that there was none to restrain him and that in view of the nature and seat of the injury it cannot be said with any amount of certainty that the petitioner intended the death of the complainant.

3. As against that the learned Deputy Advocate-General assisted by the counsel for the complainant argued that the use of deadly weapon alone would leave no doubt as to the intention on the part of the petitioner to kill the complainant regardless altogether of the nature and seat of the injury, more so when there was a motive on the part of the petitioner to kill the complainant.

4. I have carefully gone through the record and anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

5. A look at the medico-legal report would show that a single pellet pierces through the right thigh of the complainant by causing an entry as well as exit wound besides a bruise whose cause is, so far, unascertainable. While a perusal of the other data so far available would reveal that the occurrence was over, without the intervention of anybody. The petitioner did not repeat fire at the complainant notwithstanding the fact that the latter was at the mercy of the former. When viewed in this context and background, the question whether the petitioner intended the death of the complainant necessitates further enquiry and makes the case arguable for the purpose of bail especially when the injury is simple and on the non-vital part of the body. For the foregoing reasons I do not see any strong reason to withhold the concession of bail because the ultimate conviction if any would repair the wrong caused by mistaken relief of bail but no satisfactory reparation can be offered for unjustified incarceration if the accused is to be acquitted ultimately. I, therefore, allow this petition and direct the release of the petitioner on bail if he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. three lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate who is to ensure that the sureties arc local, reliable and men of means. S.A.K./1007/P Bail allowed.