1999 PLP 2288 (YLR)

S. Saeed Hassan Sherazi, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 15th March, 1999. Rehmatullah son of Hussain Bakhsh and Muhammad Riaz son of Ghulam Shabir, have preferred the present application for bail in case F.I.R. No.128, dated 17‑11‑1998 registered at Police Station Paroa under section 324/337‑F(5)/337‑A(i)/34, P.P.C., after having been aggrieved of the orders of the two Courts below, dated 12‑1‑1999 and 26‑1‑1999 respectively. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 17‑11‑1998 at about 1030 hours Mahi Khan complainant met Faqir Muhammad Amir, I.H.C. No.521, of Police Station Paroa in the vicinity of Makkar and stated before him that 10/12 years ago, he had purchased two Kanals of land from Hussain Bakhsh but he had not transferred the same on his name. A portion of the said land situated in front of his house had been constructed. According to him, an evening prior to the incident he had requested Hussain Bakhsh for transfer of the said property through mutation as there was also litigation over the said property with him, but on the eventful day at sunrise time, petitioners Muhammad Riaz armed with a .30 bore pistol and Rehmatullah armed with a S.B. shotgun entered his house and opened firing at him. With the firing of Muhammad Riaz, his son Abdul Ghaffar was hit on his forearm, while with that of petitioner Rehmatullah, his another son, named Abdul Jabbar, was hit. Besides, co‑accused Muslim also started firing on them from the roof‑top of his baithock. The occurrence was also witnessed by Punal Khan and Meherban. According to the complainant, the accused decamped from the spot after the occurrence while he escaped unhurt. Motive for the occurrence was a dispute over the land. On the basis of this report, a case was registered against the two petitioners and their co- accused Salim. The two injured, namely, Abdul Ghaffar and Abdul Jabbar, were sent for medical examination on the same day and per report of the Doctor, the injury caused to Abdul Ghaffar was grievous, as there was a fracture on the left radius into pieces, and the nature of injury was 'Ghair‑Jaifa Hashimah'. The injury caused td Abdul Jabbar was also described as Shajj‑i‑Khafifa' in nature. Both the injuries were caused with firearms. 3. I have considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record. It is a case in which two persons have received firearm injuries inside the house of the complainant, wherefrom blood‑stained earth was taken into possession and three empties of .30 bore pistol were recovered. The complainant being an inmate of the house seems to be a natural witness. This Court during earlier proceedings had observed that Faqir Muhammad Amir I.H.C. had failed to record statements of the two injured ever since the registration of the case and was directed to explain as to why he had failed to do so and to appear in person. His reply is available on the file which is not plausible. It appears that the said I.H.C. who investigated the case intentionally avoided recording statements of the two injured in order to weaken the prosecution's case through his dishonest investigation. Besides, he has also failed to show the presence of Mahi Khan complainant in the site plan. It is also the duty of the S.H.O., concerned to supervise and examine the investigation in each case by examining the. case diaries. Besides, the prosecution Branch was also negligent to point out the deficiencies in the prosecution case, which were detected by this Court. The concerned officials of the Prosecution Branch, and the S.H.O., who was then posted at Police Station Paroa, i.e., on 17‑11‑1998, are equally responsible for damaging the prosecution case in hand through their dishonest and incomplete investigation/ supervision. They are, therefore, liable to be dealt without lienency. 4. The Deputy Inspector‑General, D.I. Khan, in the circumstances of the case, may initiate departmental actions under the Police Rules against all the officials at fault, in order to set an example for others, as all of them have glaringly tried to tamper with the prosecution's evidence. Copies of this order shall be seat to the Deputy Inspector‑General and Superintendent of Police, D.I. Khan, for necessary action. 5. Now reverting to the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that in the presence of a prima facie case which is supported by the medical evidence, ocular account of Mahi Khan complainant, and other material coupled with the recoveries of crime empties and the blood‑stained earth from the spot, disentitle the petitioners to the concession of bail, as it is a case of an attempt to commit Qatl‑e‑Amad, where the two injured have sustained effective firearm injuries. This application is, therefore, dismissed. 6. However, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case within four months, failing which the petitioners would be at liberty to agitate their plea afresh before the Trial Court. N.H.Q./351/P Bail refused.