2003 P Cr (PLP)

Petitioner Ejaz Baig son of Abbas Baig seeks after‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.177 of 2002, dated 12‑12‑2002 under sections 337‑F(v), 148, 149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Head Marala, Sialkot at the instance of Munir Baig. The allegation as contained in the F.I.R. by the complainant against the petitioner is that the complainant was Chowkidar of a school and on 11‑12‑2002 at 5/6 p.m. he was present in his house and was called out by Alam Baig on the pretext that he was summoned by Akram. When the complainant was accompanying, Ijaz Baig petitioner armed with chopper, Arif Baig, Abid Baig armed with Dandas, Fayyaz Baig armed with pistol .30 bore and Alam Baig armed with Chhuri were standing on the way. Abid Baig made Lalkara. When Ijaz Baig caused chopper blow on the right leg of the complainant and the other accused also caused injuries to the complainant with their respective weapons. The petitioner was arrested on 22‑1‑2003 and challan of the case was submitted in Court on 25‑1‑2003 and he was declined after‑arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot vide order, dated 10‑5‑2003. Hence this petition. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the occurrence took place during night time and the identification of the accused was not possible and tire F.I.R. was lodged with an unexplained delay of 24 hours and the injury attributed to the petitioner does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the petitioner is no more required for investigation purpose, therefore, he is entitled for concession of bail. Conversely, the petition has been opposed by learned counsel for the State. Heard. Record perused. The petitioner caused incised wound injury measuring 8 c.m. x 3 c.m. on the right leg of the complainant and the bone was exposed. From the medico‑legal report corresponding cut on Shalwar was also found or the victim. The petitioner has been attributed specific injury. The weapon of offence was also recovered from his possession. It is correct that the offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause, but as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in PLD 1995 SC 34 titled Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State and 2002 SCMR 442 titled Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum, the petitioner cannot claim bail as a matter of right. He is involved in a heinous offence. The movement and capacity to use right leg of the complainant has also been curtailed, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, he may repeat this petition before the trial Court after some evidence is recorded. H.B.T./I‑201/L Application dismissed.