2013 PLP 1239 (YLR)

MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.

Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered against him on the complaint of Muhammad Farooq on 25-4-2012 under section 324, P.P.C. at Police Station Garden Town, Lahore. During investigation offence under sections 336, 452, 109, P.P.C. has also been added to the F.I.R.

2. Discursive of allegations is that on 14-4-2012 at about 10-15 p.m., Abid Farooq the injured son of the complainant was eating Tikkas near Raja Market Garden Town Lahore while sitting in the vehicle, two bikers came there the pillion made a fire shot with his pistol to kill Abid Farooq hitting on his right shoulder, the injured was taken to I.C.U. Jinnah Hospital and when he gained senses informed that the culprit who made fire upon him was of stout body having long beards whereas other person was driving motorcycle. On 25-4-2012 at media nox time when electric shut down was prevailing the complainant proceeded back to his house to operate the generator, heard voice of a person talking on telephone in the bathroom of the complainant whereupon the complainant made a telephone call at No.15 to the police for help; the police came, the door of bathroom was broken and a person was captured who told his name as Hassan Rana the petitioner when he was identified that he is the same person who had made a fire shot on Abid Farooq injured.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident of fire shot took place on 14-4-2012 at about 10-15 p.m. whereas the matter was reported to the police on 25-4-2012; no eye witness of the first incident exists, subsequent to the registration of the case, the police recorded the statement of injured on 27-4-2012 who did not nominate the petitioner; statements of Mst. Saadia Abid wife of injured was recorded who has not nominated the petitioner whereas statement of Mst. Shahida Shahbaz wife of the complainant was recorded on 11-5-2012, she has not a definite belief involving the petitioner in the commission of firing, partway investigation an altercation was held on 30-5-2012 wherein Mst. Saadia Abid wife of the injured has been found innocent because of whom the alleged incident was perpetrated, police found her innocent; report prepared under section 173, Cr.P.C. on 17-5-2012 recommending the prosecution of the petitioner under sections 452, 109, P.P.C. alone and even no evidence from any quarter exists to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime of causing injury to Abid Farooq; no recovery of any crime weapon has been effected from the petitioner and since 30-4-2012 petitioner is behind the bars; investigation is complete, therefore, all the material available on the record prima facie makes out a case for the grant of bail.

4. Learned D.P.-G. assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and the complainant himself being a member of the legal fraternity has opposed the submissions. Learned D.P.-G. submits that no doubt the petitioner was not nominated in the first incident but later on, in the incident he was identified by mother of the injured as she was accompanying with the injured at the time of taking meal while sitting inside the seden, the statement of Mst. Saadia Abid wife of the victim in between the liens involved the petitioner, no enmity in between the complainant party and the petitioner's party has been shown in existence for false involvement of the petitioner; partway investigation offence under sections 336, 337, P.P.C. have also been added to the F.I.R. and the police has held the petitioner guilty in this case. Delay in reporting the matter in the case in the given circumstances does not make any adverse effect on the prosecution story.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the injured has become paraplegic and is now-a-days bed ridden; he is aged about 34 years and is M.Sc., having two minor daughters and was in the bloom of his youth has now been made to be bed ridden on account of the injury made by the petitioner; the material available on the record provides no other clue about the culprit except the petitioner; police opinion is not binding upon the Court as no material exists for the same and has thus prayed for the dismissal of appeal. The complainant Muhammad Farooq Bajwa, Advocate on being asked to argue the case if he desires then he uttered the following words:-- "Can the father see his son dying in his hands?"

6. Arguments have been heard. Record has also been perused.

7. F.I.R. is divided by two parts, first in which the incident of causing fire shot injury was made to Abid Farooq injured and the second when the petitioner at media non time was found in the toilet of the complainant and was apprehended by the police from there, therefore, he was identified to be the person who caused injury to Abid Farooq injured. Abid Farooq injured and his mother both in their statements have involved the petitioner. After the occurrence Saadia Abid wife of the injured has got divorce from the injured and it has also been noticed by going through the case diaries that the petitioner is related to the wife of injured. Latest report of the doctor is that the injured has become paraplegic and on account of the same he is bedridden, the injured was an M.Sc. and has been found living in his heydays and an old benighted father when sees his young son lying on the bed awaiting his death, how can bear all the situation particularly when two minor daughters are also in his custody. It is correct that the courts are bound to decide the case by the law of the land enforced, should avoid to prove its sentiments in the case but even then if the facts and circumstances of the case prima facie exploring out such circumstances then of course Presiding Officer of the Court is also a human being. The case diaries have been minutely gone through. Nothing has been found in favour of the petitioner, delay in reporting the matter does not matter in this case because of the ambient circumstances of the case. Non-recovery of the weapon of offence does not break the case of the prosecution. The offence alleged against the petitioner involved quantum of sentence falling within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C.

8. For what has been discussed above, the tout ensembles of the same is that the petitioner fails to make out his case for the grant of bail, therefore, the instant application being shorn of reasons stands dismissed. MWA/H-I/L Bail refused.