2005 PLP 543 (YLR)

Rana Abdul Razzaq Saeed for the State with Muhammad Sharif A.S.‑I. Imran Riaz alias Mani, the petitioner, by filing the instant petition seeks his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.201, dated 10‑7‑2004, registered against him and five others at Police Station, Saddar Lala Musa, District Gujrat for offences under sections 324, 337‑A(i), 337- A(iii), 337‑F(iii), 337‑D and 337‑L (2), P. P. C.

2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the F.I.R. registered at the instance of Mubashir Iqbal son of Haji Ahmad Din was that at 4‑00 p.m. on the day of occurrence, one Bashir Ahmad son of Muhammad Din parked a loaded Mazda truck in front of their main gate; he asked the driver to take the said truck a bit further so that passage was not blocked; hot words were exchanged between the two and Bashir Ahmad assaulted him with a Danda causing an injury, on the forehead; on his hue and cry, his father Haji Ahmad Din, brothers Mazhar Iqbal, Azhar Iqbal and Haji Fazal Karim son of Mubarik Ahmad came to the spot; however, the respectables intervened and settled the matter; after a short while he along with his brothers, father, and Haji Fazal Karim left the place for treatment and when at 4‑35 p.m. they reached near the house of Muhammad Riaz son of Muhammad Din, the accused persons, namely, Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Riaz, Imran alias Mani, Kamran alias Saji, armed with fire‑arms, Khan Muhammad, armed with Danda and an unknown person, armed with .30‑bore pistol stopped them in the way and started indiscriminate firing towards them with the intention of murdering them. According to the complainant, serious injuries had been caused to the complainant side; Haji Fazal Karim received four fire shot injuries, two of which were on the chest; the right leg of Haji Mazhar had to be amputated on account of the injury suffered by him, whereas Haji Azhar suffered fire shot injuries on his face while Mubashir Iqbal received one fire shot injury on the eyebrow and the other on the shoulder. The role attributed to the petitioner Imran alias Mani in the F.I.R. was that he made repeated fire shots at Haji Ahmad Din, the father of the complainant causing injuries on various parts of his body. Resultantly, the instant F.I.R. had been recorded.

3. The petitioner's plea for post‑arrest bail had been turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kharian vide his order dated 10‑7‑2004. Hence, the instant petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petitioner's plea for bail argued that there was some conflict between the ocular account and the medico legal report; that no recovery had been effected from the petitioner; that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the complainant in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. and that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer declared that the petitioner though present at the scene was empty handed. He finally argued that the case of the petitioner was one of further inquiry and the mere fact that the trial has commenced would not be sufficient to refuse bail to the petitioner if otherwise he was entitled to the said relief.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail and submitted that from the very narration of the F.I.R. and the resultant damage suffered by the complainant party one can imagine the cruel and barbarous manner in which the attack had been executed; that it was a premeditated attack and each one of the attackers was armed with a fire‑arm, which had been effectively used in the transaction; that the manner in which the injuries had been caused and the locale thereof suggest that it was a man‑hunting expedition; that from the facts and circumstances of the case, section 324, P.P.C. was applicable with full force; that even otherwise section 337‑D, P.P.C. also attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497 (1), Cr.P.C. He finally argued that the trial had commenced and examination‑in‑chief of the complainant had been recorded, but his cross examination had been reserved on the request of the accused and that the accused are creating impediments in the course of trial.

6. The learned counsel for the State also vehemently opposed the grant of bail adopting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.

7. I have considered the arguments at considerable length and have also perused the record brought by Muhammad Sharif, A.S.‑I.

8. I would not like to make detailed comments on the merits of the case, lest it prejudices the case of either of the sides. Suffice it to say there are very serious allegations against the accused persons including the, petitioner, who had been specifically named in the F.I.R. with a definite role. Any comment on the alleged conflict between the ocular account and the, medico‑legal report at this stage is likely to prejudice the trial, which has already commenced and the prosecution's star witness, who happens to be the complainant himself, who was allegedly injured in the transaction has already appeared and his examination‑in‑chief has been recorded. At present there is ample incriminating material available on the record against the petitioner. The offences under sections 324/337‑D, P.P.C. fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. there is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./I‑71/L Petition dismissed.