2017 PLP 121 (YLRN)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The petitioner along with some co-accused was booked for the offence under sections 324/34/114, P.P.C. vide FIR No.66/2016 dated 02-07-2016 registered at Police Station City Gilgit.

2. The petitioner applied for post arrest bail in the Court of learned Sessions Judge Gilgit, who declined the same vide order dated 27-08-2016. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to allow bail to one of the co-accused namely Mehboob son of Alam Jan a real brother of the petitioner, but declined the bail petition of the petitioner/accused.

3. The short facts of the case, which led to this unfortunate incident finds mentioned in the above referred judgment which are reproduced as under:-- "The short facts of the case in the background leading to the filing of this petition as contained in the FIR are that on 02-07-2016 at 11:00 am the complainant and three others namely Rais Ahamd, Rahimullah and Sanaullah had reached near the gate of bar room Konodass, Gilgit after attending Civil Court Gilgit. In the meanwhile petitioner namely Maqbool son of Alam Jan opened indiscriminate fires on the complainant and his companions. Co-accused Javaid son of Abdul Qadir, Mehboob Alam, Manzoor Alam sons of Alam Jan and Alam Jan son of Ghulam Jan were also present along with principal accused at the place of the occurrence and they were abetting the principal accused namely Maqbool Jan and besides the complainant three other persons namely Rais Ahmad, Rahimullah and Sanaullah received bullet injuries. The occurrence was witnessed by PWs namely Shukoor Ahmed and Tahir Mehmood."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are material contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses. The learned counsel further submitted that four persons were injured in the incident, whereas only three crime empties were recovered from the place of occurrence. The recovery of 30 bore pistol is also fake and has been planted by the Police in collusion with the complainant party. Per learned counsel the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. are not attracted in the instant case, as none of the injured received fire arm injuries on any vital part of the body and intention to kill will be determined at the time of trial. The case being one of the further inquiry the petitioner be released on bail.

5. On the other hand the learned Dy.A.G. opposed the bail petition with vehemence and submits that it was a day light occurrence and the occurrence took place in front of bar room, which is adjacent to the Court of learned Additional and Sessions Judge Gilgit in peak working hours. The petitioner sprayed the bullets on the victim and there was a motive of a land dispute among the parties. The victims came to Court to attend hearing of the case and when they came out of the Court they were assaulted. There is no chance of mistaken identity and moreover a 30 bore pistol was also snatched from the petitioner at the place of occurrence. The learned Dy. A.G. prays that the bail petition be dismissed in the interest of justice.

6. After hearing both the parties and scanning of record with their able assistance, it is not denied that the petitioner is directly charged in promptly lodged FIR and he was caught red handed with weapon of offence at the place of occurrence. The petitioner assaulted on his rivals and injured four persons, who were immediately removed to the hospital for first aid treatment and the medical certificates issued by the concerned medical authorities also coincide with the time and space of the occurrence. The question raised at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner could be well answered by the prosecution at the time of trial. Charge against the accused on the basis of ocular evidence coupled with the medical evidence in the hands of prosecution establish a prima facie case which get ample support from the recovery of weapon of offence and red handed arrest of the accused.

7. The result of above discussion is that the petition is dismissed being meritless. JK/235/GB Petition dismissed.