1987 P Cr (PLP)

M.M.A. Pirzada for the State. This is an application for bail on behalf of Muhammad Aslam petitioner in a case under section 307/34, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Saddar, Sadiqabad, vide F.I.R. No. 33/82, dated 15‑2‑1982.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and Badal in furtherance of their common intention launched murderous assault upon Noor Elahi on the night between 14/15‑2‑1982 in the area of village Valana, P.S. Saddar, Sadiqabad. It has been alleged that the petitioner caused one fire‑arm injury on the back and upper part of chest left side (scapular region and below it) of Noor Elahi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the rejection of the earlier application of the petitioner on 27‑2‑1983, fresh grounds have arisen in due course of events which may entitle the petitioner to the concession of bail inasmuch as the evidence of 6 out of 8 prosecution witnesses has been recorded and that from the statement of Dr. Abdul Wahab, P.W.1, it appears that no case punishable under section 307, P.P.C. is made out. As against this, the learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the ground that the plea for bail has already been rejected by this Court on 27‑2‑1983.

4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record available before me, I find that the occurrence took place on the night between 14/15‑2‑1982; that the petitioner was arrested on 23‑2‑1982 and allowed bail by the trial Court on 10‑3‑1982, that the bail granted to the petitioner by the trial Court was cancelled on 23‑2‑1983; that the plea for bail of the petitioner was then rejected by my learned brother Muhammad Sharif, J. on 2:7‑2‑Jr983; that after the rejection of his plea for bail, the evidence of 6 oat of 8 prosecution witnesses has been recorded; that although about 7 months after the rejection of earlier application have passed yet the entire prosecution evidence has not been recorded; that the case is almost at defence stage, that P.W.1 Dr. Abdul Wahab in cross‑examination has made the following statement: ‑ "I had not given the reasons for declaring injuries as grievous and dangerous to life because these were on the vital part of the body. It is correct that the injuries did not cause permanent disability. It is also correct that the X‑Ray of the injured is not on the file. I cannot say whether the bone of the injured was fractured or not without seeing the X‑Ray which is not on the file. The injured was fired from a distance of few yards."

5. For what has been found above, I am of the opinion that after the rejection of the earlier application by this Court, fresh grounds have arisen in due course of events inasmuch as the evidence of 6 out of 8 witnesses have been recorded and that the Medical Officer, has stated that he was not in a position to say whether the injury found on the person of the victim was grievous or not in these circumstances, to my mind, the matter requires further enquiry. The petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. /Duty Magistrate. H. A. K./4572/L Bail allowed.