2007 PLP 1313 (YLR)

HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.

Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in the case, F.I.R. No.144 dated 17-5-2005 under section 324/34 of P.P.C. registered with Police Station Khangarh, District Muzaffar Garh.

2. Precisely the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he fired at the complainant with a carbine hitting his head.

3. In support of this application the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the alleged eye-witnesses being the residents of another village are not natural witnesses of this occurrence; that despite the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 11-5-2006 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.939-B of 2006 the trial Court has failed to conclude the trial within the prescribed period of four months; that the petitioner has been languishing in jail for a period of one year and three months; that empty shell was not recovered from the spot and that two of the - co-accused of the petitioner have been found innocent, therefore, the case of the petitioner also requires further inquiry. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance upon cases reported as Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State (PLJ 2005 Criminal Cases Lahore 428), Azhar Ali v. State (2001 YLR 2601) and 1999 SCMR 2147.

4. After hearing the arguments of both the parties I have observed that the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and even otherwise it is established law that each case has to be decided keeping in view particular facts of said case. As far as case of Muhammad Aslam v. The State (1999 SCMR 214) is concerned it related to a case which was governed by the provisions guaranteeing the right of bail on the ground of expiry of statutory period. Said provisions are no more available on the statutory books, therefore, bail cannot be granted simply on the ground that the trial has not been concluded within the stipulated time as directed by this Court.

5. The petitioner is duly named in the F.I.R. with a specific role. He had caused fire-arm injury on the head of the injured P.W. who survived just by sheer luck. The medico-legal certificate duly supports the ocular version. The intention of any accused is always judged by considering the weapon of offence used by the offender, and the seat of injuries received by the injured or deceased. Without delving deeper into the facts of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either party, it is observed that the petitioner is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause. Injured P.W. is duly corroborating the version given in the F.I.R. No case for bail is made out. Consequently this petition is found to be meritless and is dismissed. H.B.T./M-105/L Bail refused.