2004 PLP 94 (YLR)

Date of hearing: 24th June, 2003. Heard

2. Muhammad Afzal son of Muhammad Ashraf caste Awan, resident of Ismail Awan, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot, petitioner, has applied for his post -arrest bail in the case bearing F.I.R. No.20 of 2002, dated 10‑2‑2002 which stands registered against him alongwith his co‑accused under sections 324/34, P.P.C. with Police Station Motra, District Sialkot.

3. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 10‑2‑2002 at about 12‑00 p.m. he fired a shot with his pistol .30 bore which hit on the left leg of Yaseen while his companion Muhammad Azam fired with pistol which hit on the right leg of Yaseen when he after causing to dismount the passengers from his tonga at the bridge, was coming towards Kotli Marlan. The motive behind the occurrence was that a few days earlier Yaseen injured had quarreled with Muhammad Afzal. So at the instance of Khalil Ahmad the above said case was registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; that the role attributed to the petitioner did not result into any fracture nor there is any such allegation that he had repeated the fire‑shot; that even out of the contents of the F.I.R. the fact of intention to kill is missing, therefore, the provisions of section 337, P.P.C. are only attracted in this case which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than one year but there is no progress in the trial of the case and keeping in view all the circumstances it is a case of further inquiry to the extent of the petitioner as such he is entitled for the concession of bail. He referred to the cases reported in, "Meeran Bux v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 544 (Lahore) and Master Dur Muhammad and 2 others v. The State 1994 PCr. LJ 1769 (Karachi) in support of his arguments. which have been opposed by the learned State Counsel who submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with an allegation of causing fire‑arm injury, therefore, it is not a fit case for bail.

5. It is obvious from the contents of the F.I.R. that the role attributed to the petitioner resulted into an injury on the left leg and the fire shots made by the co- accused had hit on the right leg. The seat of injury selected by the petitioner reflects on his intention, even at this stage it looks that had there been any intention to kill anybody he could hit the vital parts of the body of the victim. Admittedly there is delay in disposal of the case either it happened in submission of challan or in the trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 19‑3‑2003 while disposing of the bail petition has observed that the ground of being behind the bars for the last about one year in such‑like a case is no more available after deletion of 3rd and 4th provisos to section 497, Cr.P.C. The point for examination is as to whether the petitioner could be deprived from the concession provided by clause (a) to 3rd proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C., Third and fourth provisos have been omitted by the Ordinance (LIV of 2001) dated 10‑10‑2001. Meaning thereby before commission of offence in this case the third and fourth provisos had already been deleted, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any such concession; however, the fact of delay in disposal of the case is there and the Court is bound to examine as to who is responsible for causing the delay as this is basic duty of the Court in the 'administration of the criminal justice. The learned State Counsel could not convince that the delay was caused in disposal of the case by the petitioner or anybody else on his behalf. Therefore, the delay in disposal of the case is also worth‑consideration in this case and in view of above circumstances it appears to be a case or further inquiry.

6. Consequently, Muhammad Afzal petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety bond in the sum or Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Petition is hereby accepted. H.B.T./M‑2236/L Bail granted.