2001 P Cr (PLP)

Shaharyar Sheikh for Petitioner. Ch. Haider Bakhsh for the Complainant. Badar Munir Ahmad for the State. Asif Iqbal petitioner is an accused person in case F.I.R. No.33 registered at Police Station Shah Nikdar, District Sargodha on 25-5-1999 for offences under sections 324/337-F(iii)/34/109, P.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner and his four co-accused is that at about 6-00 p.m. on 24-5-1999 they had launched a murderous assault on Imran, a brother of Muhammad Sadiq complainant, and had caused him injuries. The petitioner was arrested by the local police in connection with this case on 8-6-1999. Subsequently his successive applications for ~post-arrest bail were dismissed by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Sargodha, Camp at Sillanwali and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide orders, dated 11-10-1999 and 2-11-1999 respectively. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that it was a daylight occurrence and the petitioner had been specifically named in the F.I.R. to be one of the perpetrators of the offences in question. A specific fire-arm injury on the person of Imran P.W. had been attributed to the petitioner. Four eye witnesses, including the injured victim, have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating the petitioner in the offences alleged against him. The medical evidence prima facie supports the allegation against the petitioner. The petitioner is also directly connected with the motive set up in the F.I.R. A pistol has already been recovered from the petitioner's custody during the investigation of this case. An offence under section 324, P.P.C. attracts the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The challan against the petitioner has already been submitted after finalization of investigation wherein the local police has felt convinced of the guilt of the petitioner. The trial against the petitioner has already commenced.

3. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a co-accused of the petitioner namely Waqar Ahmad has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha and that the case against the present petitioner is not distinguishable from the case against the said co-accused. I have, however, remained unable to subscribe to the said view canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The said co-accused of the petitioner had been found to be innocent by the local police during the investigation and he was also apparently not connected with the motive set up in the F.I.R. Both these considerations are surely not relevant to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner's case was, thus, clearly distinguishable from the case against the said co-accused.

4. For what has been observed above prima facie reasonable grounds do exist to believe in the involvement of the petitioner in the offences alleged gainst him. This petition, therefore, has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./A-167/L Bail refused.