2001 PLP 2921 (YLR)

The petitioner and three others are involved in case F.I.R. No.121 dated 18‑3‑2001 registered at Police Station Havelian, District Abbottabad, at the behest of complainant Abdur Razaq under sections 382/337‑A(ii)/34, P.P.C. read with section 13 Arms Ordinance, 1965.

2. The prosecution story in brief is, that on the night of occurrence, i.e., 18‑3‑2001 at about 9‑00 p.m., the complainant after having been relieved of his duty, was on his way to his house and when he reached on the path leading to Magri Soka in the limits of Deh Mohabata distant 2/3 kilometres from Police Station Havelian, he was waylaid by 3/4 boys. They caught hold of the complainant and asked the latter to surrender his belongings to them. The complainant tried to extricate himself from the clutches of the boys. In the process one of them took out a 'Churn' and inflicted blows on the complainant. A sum of Rs.600 lying in the pocket of the complainant fell on the ground. Two of them picked up the money and made good their escape. However, the boy causing churri blows to the complainant was over powered and relieved of the Churri. On raising hue and cry inhabitants of the nearby locality were attracted to the spot who were informed about the incident.

3. The petitioners moved applications for bail before Judicial Magistrate, Abbottabad and Additional Sessions Judge, Abbottabad which were refused through orders dated 16‑4‑2001 and 15‑6‑2001 respectively. The petitioner has moved instant application for grant of bail on refusal of the same by the Courts below and in support of the bail application Sheikh Mehmood Ahmad, Advocate for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had no hand in the affair that he has been falsely associated with the guilt and that in view of the nature of injuries sustained by the Complainant the case against the petitioner falls under section 337‑A(ii), P.P.C. which carries maximum punishment of 5 years. Additionally, it is urged that the petitioner is of tender age and he is in jail since his arrest on 18‑3‑2001 and that he is no more required for the purpose of investigation. He relies on Muhammad Yousaf v. The State 2000 MLD 1697 Karachi and Liaqat Shah v. The State 2001 PCr.L.J. 1723 Lahore. ,Haji Sabir Hussain Tanoli Advocate for the State assisted by Malik Amjad Ali Advocate for the complainant opposed the bail application and maintain on the strength of a case reported as Muhammad Yousaf v. The State 2000 MLD 1697 Karachi and Shahzad and 2 others v. The State 2000 PCr.L.J. 1000 Peshawar that the discretion having been properly exercised in refusing bail to the petitioner, is neither perverse nor arbitrary warranting interference of this Court and that keeping in view the attending circumstances and the gravity of offence, the concession of bail has been rightly refused.

4. There is a prima facie case connecting the accused‑petitioner with the commission of offence. Allegation against the petitioner is that in order to deprive the complainant of his belongings and cash amount, the petitioner inflicted Churri blows on the complainant. The petitioner was over powered by the complainant and the Churri was snatched from him. The petitioner Was apprehended at the spot and handed over to the police by the inhabitants of the locality namely, Fiaz Muhammad, Arif Muhammad and Jehanzeb and others stated to have attracted to the spot on hearing hue and cries of the complainant. The medical evidence and statements of the above mentioned witnesses fully support the charge and there is nothing on the file to show that the petitioner has been falsely roped in due to previous enmity with the complainant and had no hand in the offence. So far as the minority of the petitioner is concerned, there is nothing on record in support thereof. It is not denied that the minority alone constitutes no ground and lay a foundation for grant of bail in case there is sufficient material on record to associate an accused person with the offence charged for. Adverting to the point of consistency I find that the role attributed to co‑accused Sudhair since released on bail, is quite distinguishable from the role assigned to the petitioner. The principle of consistency cannot be pressed into service in the case of the petitioner.

5. Having held that the petitioner is directly nominated in the promptly lodged F.I.R. for the guilt and prima facie he is associated with the crime, I do not feel inclined to release him on bail. The application of the petitioner fails which is hereby rejected and bail is declined. As the investigation stands completed the prosecution is directed to submit challan within 15 days and the trial Court shall conclude the trial within a period of six months failing which the accused‑petitioner shall be at liberty to move fresh application for his release on bail in the trial Court.

6. The observations made above are tentative in nature and relate to the order in hand only. N.H.Q./388/P Bail refused.