2009 PLP 280 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.

Having failed to secure bail from the Court of Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karak who rejected the bail applications of the petitioner vide order dated 7-6-2008 and 30-6-2008 respectively. The petitioner Ghulam Farid involved in case F.I.R. No.117 dated 31-5-2008 under section 324, P.P.C. P.S. Latamber District Karak has come to this Court seeking his release on bail.

2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that Sifatullah complainant lodged the report on 31-5-2008 which was entered in D.D. No.9 of the same date to the effect that he is running a retail shop in Hamidan Chowk. At 6-10 hours when he reached near the shop of Eid Merjan resident of Haji Banda there Ghulam Farid son of Bahadur Khan was present along with .30 bore Pistol. When he reached near Ghulam Farid, he was fired at by him, in order to intimidate him. On the second fire the empty cartridge stuck in the barrel and then Ghulam Farid gave him blows with the butt of the Pistol and thus, he was injured. After the receipt of the medicologal report the case as aforesaid was registered against the accused/petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused-petitioner is charged for firing with specific assertion by the complainant; that the firing was made in order to criminally intimidate the complainant. It was also submitted that the medicolegal report shows that the injury on the person of the complainant is with blunt weapon and simple in nature. Thus, it does not come within the embargo contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. It was also submitted that the case against the accused-petitioner is that of further inquiry and thus he is entitled to the concession of bail. Reliance was placed on "Bahadur Said v. The State and another" reported in (2007 PCr.LJ 1667 (Peshawar) and on the case of "Muhammad Safdar and another v. The State" reported in (2007 PCr.LJ 562).

4. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner has been directly charged in the F.I.R. The occurrence has been duly witnessed by independent witnesses and in view of gravity of allegations against the accused/petitioner he is not entitled to the concession of bail. Reliance was placed on "Muhammad Arif v. The State" reported in (1998, PCr.LJ 149).

5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have minutely scanned the record of the case.

6. Without dilating upon the merits of the case lest it may not prejudice the case of the parties, suffice it to observe that the accused/petitioner is charged for ineffective firing, that too, for criminal intimidation and the injuries attributed to him are with blunt weapon and simple in nature. The question that which section of law will be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case will be determined during the trial which makes the case of the petitioner as of one further inquiry. Furthermore, the investigation in the case is complete and challan is ready to be put in Court for the same. Thus, his case can be considered for the purpose of bail.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, this bail application is allowed and the accused/petitioner Ghulam Farid is ordered to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.2 lac (rupees two hundred thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate who shall see that the sureties must be local, reliable and men of means. H.B.T./177/P Bail granted.