1999 P Cr (PLP)

Salim Nawaz for the Complainant. Syed Hassan Sherazi, A.A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 12th June, 1998. It was on 18‑3‑1998 at 1445 hours that Muhammad Ibrahim son of Abdul Wahid had lodged a report in injured condition in Emergency Ward of Civil Hospital, D.I. Khan to the effect that on the eventful day and time he had taken his goats for grazing towards "catch" when at 1230 hours Ghulam Qasim and Ghulam Jillani, both armed with .30 bore pistols came there. Ghulam Jillani fired a shot at him which hit him on chest whereafter both the accused decamped from the spot. The occurrence was stated to has been witnessed by one Mushtaq and the motive for the offence was disclosed to be an altercation which had taken place some three days ago. A case under section 324/34, P.P.C. was accordingly registered against them vide F.I.R. No.56, dated 18‑3‑1998 at Police Station D.I. Khan. After their arrest, they applied for their release on bail before the Court of Illaqa Magistrate who vide his order, dated 4‑4‑1998 admitted accused Ghulam Qasim to bail, but refused the same concession to co‑accused Ghulam Jillani. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the complainant Muhammad Ibrahim approached the Court of Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan for cancellation of .the bail granted to accused Ghulam Qasim, while accused Ghulam Jillani knocked the doors of the said Court for his release on bail. The bail allowed to accused Ghulam Qasim was recalled while the prayer for bail by accused Ghulam Jillani was turned down by order, dated 27‑4‑1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan. Both the accused have, therefore, now come up to this Court through the application in hand for their release on bail.

2. After considering the arguments advanced at the Bar and going through the record of the case with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that petitioner Ghulam Jillani is directly charged in the promptly lodged report for opening the first fire shot at the victim which had proved effective. Besides; the ocular testimony of the P.W. supports the version of, the complainant and the medico‑legal report is also in line with the narration given in the first report. Therefore, he is, prima facie, reasonably linked with the crime and is not entitled to the concession of bail. His prayer fort bail is, therefore, rejected.

3. In so far as the case of petitioner Ghulam Qasim is concerned, it is on different footings. The complainant in his first report had attributed two fire shots to both the accused, but the medical report of the victim negates the same as there was only one fire‑arm injury on his person. Therefore, his case being of further inquiry is arguable for the purposes of bail. As such this application qua him is accepted and he is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs. fifty thousands with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./194/P Order accordingly.