2007 PLP 351 (YLR)

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.179 of 2006, dated 20-3-2006, registered under sections 324/392, P.P.C. at Police Station, Chunian, District Kasur.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with his brother Mehmood Arif and two unknown persons while armed with pistols and .12 bore gun on gun point snatched the jewellery worn by the sister of the complainant, Mst. Nasreen Akhtar. Thereafter, Mehmood Arif, co-accused of the petitioner fired from his pistol which hit the complainant on the left leg. The petitioner also fired a shot from his gun which hit on the fore-head of brother-in-law of the complainant, namely, Mehboob Mustafa, whereafter the petitioner and his co-accused fled from the place of the occurrence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Arif, A.S.-I. during the investigation declared the petitioner innocent; that the D.S.P., concerned had also agreed with the investigation conducted by the said police officer; that subsequent investigation conducted in the case was not in accordance with law; that nothing had been recovered from the petitioner; that the petitioner had no intention of attempting to commit the murder of the said Mehboob Mustafa, P.W., hence the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. were not prima facie attracted to the case of the petitioner, hence he was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant contended that, the F.I.R. was lodged with reasonable promptitude; that the petitioner was nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role of inflicting injury with fire-arm to Mehboob Mustafa, P.W. was ascribed to him. During the investigation, the petitioner was found to be fully involved in' the commission of crime; that the fire attributed to the petitioner hit the P.Ws. on his forehead which was a very vital part of the body, hence it could be safely inferred that the petitioner had the intention to murder the said P.W.; that the offences under sections 324 and 392, P.P.C. were hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner had concealed the material facts from the Court, in particular that his bail application had been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 5-5-2006 on account of his absence; that the petitioner was previous record-holder and a number of cases stood registered against him; that the investigation conducted by Arif, A.S.-I. was declared to have been conducted illegally as held by the S.P. (Investigation) and on account thereof the proceedings had been initiated against the said A.S.-I.; that the four witnesses, who got recorded their statements under section 161, C.P.C. before the police, fully involved the petitioner with the commission of the offences mentioned in the F.I.R.; that no mala fide of the complainant or the police for false involvement of the petitioner was established from the record, hence the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The petitioner is named in the' F.I.R. and specific role has been attributed to him in reasonably promptly lodged F.I.R. The petitioner is alleged to have caused injury of, the forehead of Mehboob Mustafa, P.W. which is vital part of the body. This fact is fully supported by the Medico-legal Report of the said P.W. which further connects the petitioner with the prosecution case. The petitioner and his co-accused are previous record holders as there are a number of cases registered against them under various provisions of P.P.C., including sections 324 and 395, P.P.C. etc. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been declared innocent in the investigation conducted by Arif, A.S.-I. which was further verified by the D.S.P. does not carry much weight as the SP (Investigation) after a thorough probe in the matter concluded that the said investigation was conducted in a mala fide manner and had initiated legal action against the said A.S.-I. The petitioner's earlier bail application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for his non-appearance on 5-5-2006, whereafter the second bail application was also dismissed for similar reasons on 31-7-2006 which fact has been concealed by the petitioner. The four witnesses, namely Nasreen Bibi, Shazia, Amna and Tonga Driver, who got their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. before the police, fully supported the prosecution case against the petitioner. The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. are punishable with ten years imprisonment each, hence the same are covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

7. For what has been discussed above, there is enough evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crimes alleged against him. Resultantly, this petition being without any force is dismissed. S.M.B./M-569/L Petition dismissed.