2001 P Cr (PLP)

Mushtaq Ali Tahir Kheli for Petitioner. Ghulam Younis Khan Tanoli and Muhammad Akbar Khan Swati for the State. Date of hearing: 10th April, 2001. This is an application by Riaz petitioner under section 497, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, who stands arrested in case F.I.R. No.506, dated 8‑12‑2000 registered under section 324, P.P.C. at the behest of complainant Malik Dad.

2. Malik Dad complainant was brought to Rural Health Centre Havelian in injured condition on 8‑12‑2000 at 16‑20 hours wherein he made a report to the effect that at 15‑30 hours he was present near his house in Deh Kaseel when in the meanwhile his co‑villager Riaz petitioner appeared there and started abusing him. Muhammad Younas and Zakir‑ur‑Rehman sons of Zar Dad on hearing the noise came to the spot and prevented the petitioner from abusing the complainant. The petitioner took out a pistol from the fold of his Shalwar and fired at the complainant. The complainant was hit on his belly and fell down on the ground. The petitioner decamped from the spot. The petitioner applied for bail but his application was rejected by Judicial Magistrate, Abbottabad vide order, dated 12‑1-2001.

4. The petitioner approached the Court of Session Abbottabad but without any success as his bail application was also rejected through order dated 21‑2‑2001.

5. The petitioner having remained unsuccessful to obtain the relief of bail has moved this Court with the similar prayer and in support of the bail application it is submitted by Mr. Mushtaq Ali Tapir Kheli, Advocate for the petitioner that in fact, the petitioner was attacked by complainant Malak Dad when he was making complaint to Younas son of Zardad about misbehaviour of his sons with the daughters of the petitioner. The petitioner sustained multiple injuries during the occurrence, whereupon the matter was reported to the police in R.H.C. Havelian. The petitioner was medically examined and on the basis of medical report case F.I.R. No.507, dated 8‑12‑2000 under section 33.7‑A(ii)/34, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station Havelian against the complainant and his co‑accused. The complainant and his co- accused have already been admitted to bail vide order, dated 9‑2‑2001 but the concession of bail has been declined to the petitioner without any‑justifiable reason. The learned counsel added that there are two versions of the same occurrence. The petitioner has been charged for firing at the complainant whereas in fact the fire was made by Banaras son of Mian Dad, one of the co‑accused with complainant on account of which the complainant sustained injury on his belly. To substantiate tote pleas reliance has been placed on Muhammad Nazir v. The State 2000 MLD 1269 Lahore and Abdul Salam v. The State 1980 SCMR

142. In response to the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner, it is contended by Mr. Mead Akbar Khan, Advocate for the complainant that there is sufficient material on file to connect the petitioner with the guilt and mere filing of cross‑case constitutes no good ground for release of an accused‑person on bail if prima face he is associated with the guilt. Reliance has been placed on Shahid Hayat and 2 others v. The State PLD 1999 Kar. 162, Riaz Shah v.. Mubarak Shah and another 2000 PCr.LJ 1167 Peshawar and Nasir Muhammad Wassart and another v. The State 1992 SCMR 501.

6. Be that as it may, without adverting to the merits of the case at this stage I find that the petitioner is directly charged in the promptly lodged A F.I.R. for having fired at his co‑villager Malik Dad (34/35) with his pistol on account of which Malik Dad was hit and fell on the ground. The medical evidence and the statements of P. Ws. Younas and Zakirur Rehman fully support the prosecution version.

7. It needs no reiteration that in cases of counter‑version the rule followed is that if one party is granted bail the other too is entitled to bail, but that rule would' be applicable in cases of genuine counter‑version. In the instant case I find myself in agreement with learned counsel for the complainant that mere filing of cross‑case against each other cannot be a ground for grant of bail as held in 1992 SCMR 501 and 1995 SCMR 860, unless an element of genuineness is there. The case‑law produced on behalf of the petitioner proceeds on different footings and has no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Courts below have properly exercised discretion in disallowing bail to the petitioner and I see no good reason to interfere with the same.

8. Resultantly, the bail application fails which is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./264/P Application dismissed.