2002 PLP 1268 (MLD)

As a result of the case bearing F.I.R. No.185 of 2001, dated 8‑5‑2001 registered under sections 337‑A(ii)/337‑F(i)/337‑F(ii)/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Dunyapur, District Lodhran, Muhammad Waqqas petitioner stands involved. in the allegation that he at 6‑30 p.m. on 3‑8‑2001 in the area of Chak No.281‑83/WB while armed with a dagger along-with his companions, assaulted on Muhammad Naeem. So as a result of assault Muhammad Naeem sustained three dagger blows; first on the right side of abdomen, second on left side of shoulder and the third one on the head caused by Muhammad Waqqas while his companions caused injuries with hatchet and Sota and that Latif while armed with a rifle being present at the spot had been threatening with dire consequences.

2. The motive behind the occurrence was that co‑accused Abdul Latif contested the recent elections while the complainant party opposed him so because of this grudge Muhammad Naeem was attacked. So at the instance of Wali Muhammad father of the injured the above-said case was registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that an eye‑witness named Hanif has sworn affidavit in which he negated this version that he had witnessed the occurrence; that the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner is behind the bars and no more required by the police, therefore, it is a fit case for bail.

4. Which have been opposed by the learned State Counsel who submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific role of causing dagger blows to the injured, therefore, there are exceptional circumstances in the instant case due to which bail may be refused to the petitioner. He referred to the case Muhammad Zafar alias Zafar Iqbal v. The State (2001 MLD 287).

5. The perusal of the medico‑legal report would show that out of injuries sustained by the injured three injuries were caused by a sharp? edged weapon. The contents of the F.I.R. would show that the injuries landed on the vital parts of the body. It appears that Muhammad Waqqas petitioner as being the assailant along with his companions had been repeating the dagger blows and same had landed on the vital parts meaning thereby he had this knowledge that due to assault on the vital pr parts of the body with dangerous weapon he may be guilty of Qatl‑e‑Amd if the death of injured person had been caused. Besides the nature of injuries/the selection of seat of injury also determines the intention and knowledge of the assailant. Moreover, in this regard the weapon used in the occurrence carries much importance to attract the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. Even if the local police is not inclined to apply the correct provisions of law, the circumstances as discussed above would force to believe that there is an exception to refuse bail in case of non‑bailable offence. Therefore, it is not a fit case for bail. As a consequence of it this petition being without merits is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1131/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail application dismissed.