1980 PLP 131 (SCMR)

G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.‑On 7th January, 1979, at 10‑15 a.m., an F. I. R. was lodged at the Gotki Police Station, District Sukkur by complainant Luskari to the effect that at about 7‑30 a.m. on that date the petitioner alongwith co‑accused Ismail came to the tube‑well of Ghulam Shabbir Kalwar, his employer, and abused him saying as to why he had not left the service of Kalwar according to the instruction given to him in that behalf a week earlier ; that before he could reply to their said query, petitioner Baig Muhammad took out a box of matches from his pocket and set on fire the thatched but which he used for his residential purposes that in order to extinguish the fire he stepped forward but Ismail wiped out a pistol from the folds of his trouser and fired in the air that at this he started grappling with Ismail and in the ensuing struggle the pistol fell down from his hand ‑ but right then petitioner Baig took out a revolver from the folds of his trousers and fired at him as a result of which he was hit on his right arm ; that after having thus been injured he raised hue and cry which attracted to the spot P.Ws. Muhammad Bakhsh, Bihar and Kamal and on seeing them the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Upon these allegations the petitioner alongwith co‑accused Ismail was arrested and in order to secure bail for themselves they made efforts up to the High Court. But in the High Court only Ismail was released on bail whereas the bail application in respect of Baig Muhammad was dismissed. In seeking leave to appeal against appeal against the said order of the High Court. Mr. Muhammad Bilal, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised only one contention to the effect that the injury suffered by the complainant was simple in nature and consequently the High Court should have released him on bail. The medical evidence no doubt supports the learned counsel but the question remains whether the impugned order of the High Court can be said to be so unreasonable as this Court should find it necessary to interfere with it in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. Upon the allegations made in the F. I. R. by complainant Laskari, case under section 307/436/34, P. P. C. and under section 13‑D of the Arms Ordinance, was registered against the petitioner, and we are told that the same is still under the process of investigation, In these circumstances, it can hardly be contended that by rejecting the bail application of the petitioner the High Court had acted unreasonably or that the impugned order passed by it is of the type which could not have been passed in the proper exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction by any Judge. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioner, after the challan has been put in Court, to make another application for bail which it is needless to say will have to be disposed of by the learned Court seized of the matter strictly according to law. Petition dismissed.