2007 PLP 814 (YLR)

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.

Through this petition, the accused Muhammad Iqbal seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.391 dated 3-12-2005 under section 324, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bhakkar.

2. The allegations against the petitioner as stated in the FIR are that the petitioner on 2-12-2005 while armed with .30 bore pistol fired two shots at the complainant which touched the clothes of the complainant but luckily did not hit him. The occurrence was witnessed by Mumtaz Hussain and Imam Bakhsh P.Ws. who saved the complainant from the accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is of ineffective firing and no injury has been caused to the complainant. The F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of one day and the same is an outcome of enmity as the petitioner has got case F.I.R, No.47 of 2006 registered against the complainant Ijaz Hussain for poisoning his chicken. Further contends that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail as in cases of ineffective firing the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exceptional.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contends that the accused has been nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role of firing with .30 bore pistol at the complainant is ascribed to him. The shirt which was worn by the complainant at the time of occurrence with corresponding bullet holes, has been taken into possession by the police. Recovery of .30 bore pistol has also been effected from the petitioner and that Mumtaz Hussain and Imam Hussain P.Ws. while appearing before the police have fully supported the case of the prosecution against the petitioner. Further contends that two investigations were conducted by the police one by the S.H.O. and the order by the D.S.P. and in both the investigations, the petitioner was found involved in the case. Insofar as the case F.I.R. No.47 of 2006 dated 19-2-2006 registered at Police Station Sadar, Bhakkar on the complaint of the petitioner is concerned, the same has been lodged as a counterblast Co the F.I.R. in which bail is being sought by the petitioner being prior in time to the said F.I.R. The offence under section 324, P.P.C. falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. hence the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The case was investigated twice and in both the investigations the petitioner was found fully involved. Pistol .30-bore has been recovered from the petitioner on 16-12-2005 and the shirt with corresponding bullet holes has also been taken into possession by the police. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role of firing at the complainant is attributed to him. The assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail as the only allegation against him is of ineffective firing' is not sustainable as in case of ineffective firing grant of bail is neither a rule of law nor can the same be treated as rule of prudence. Bail in each case is to be considered on its own merit as facts differ from case to case.

7. Insofar as the F.I.R. No.47 of 2006 registered against the complainant at the instance of petitioner is concerned the same was registered on 19-2-2006 whereas the F.I.R. in which bail is sought by the petitioner was registered on 3-12-2005. Since the instant F.I.R. was registered prior in time to F.I.R. No.47 of 2006 as such, the same is of no consequence. The witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. have fully implicated the petitioner in their statements before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. and the factum of recovery of .30 bore pistol further supports the case of the prosecution.

8. The offence under section 324, P.P.C. is a non-bailable offence, which is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years thus the case of the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. A tentative assessment of the evidence on the record shows that there is ample evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence, mentioned in the F.I.R. 8-A. In view of what has been discussed above, the petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M-124/L Bail refused.