2008 P Cr (PLP)

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail allowed to respondents No.1 and 2 in case F.I.R. No.346 of 2006, dated 29-8-2006 for offences under sections 324/34, 337-A(ii), 337-F(iii) and 337-L(2), P.P.C., registered at Police Station Kallur Kot, District Bhakkar, by the learned Additional Session Judge, Kallur Kot, District Bhakkar, vide order dated 27-3-2007.

2. As per contents of the F.I.R. Ijaz Ahmed, respondent No.1 while armed with a hatchet and' Muhammad Saleem, respondent No.2 while armed with a .30 bore pistol caused injuries to the complainant-petitioner and consequently, the aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R. in question was lodged with promptitude in which respondents Nos.1 and 2 are named and specific role has been ascribed to them of causing injuries with their respective weapons on the person of the complainant which fact is fully corroborated by his medico-legal report as well as by the report of the Medical Board which had re-examined the complainant; that during investigation, the weapons of offence i.e. hatchet and pistol were recovered from the possession of respondents Nos.1 and 2 which further connect them with the crime; that since the injuries were caused on the vital part of the person of the complainant, the provisions of section 324, Cr.P.C. are fully attracted and as the offence is punishable with ten years imprisonment, therefore, it attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that during investigation, the respondents were found to be fully implicated in the case by the police and consequently, challan in the case has been submitted although there is no further progress thereafter; that despite overwhelming evidence available on the record to connect respondents Nos.1 and 2 with the crime committed by them, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has extended the concession of bail on the sole ground that the accused side had filed a private complaint in which the petitioner and others have been summoned by the learned trial Court and that the said ground by itself is not sufficient to warrant grant of bail.

4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel representing respondents Nos.1 and 2 contends that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby he had allowed the concession of post-arrest bail to respondents Nos.1 and 2 is in consonance with law as in the complaint filed by Ijaz Ahmed, respondent No.1 the petitioner as well as others have been summoned and, therefore, it is a case of two versions which squarely attracts the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into the guilt of the respondents.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

7. The F.I.R. in the case was promptly lodged which carries a lot of weight and excludes the possibility of substitution of the accused. The medico-legal report as well as the report of the Medical Board which had re-examined the complainant/petitioner is in conformity with the eye-witness account furnished by the complainant and the P. Ws. The injuries suffered by the petitioner are on vital part of his person and, therefore, prima facie, the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. are attracted to the case. Since the offence is punishable with ten years imprisonment, therefore, it falls within the ambit of the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. During investigation, weapons of offence, i.e. hatchet and pistol were recovered from the possession of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 which further connect them with the prosecution case. In the investigation conducted by the police, the said respondents were found to be fully implicated in the crime. Although challan in the case has been submitted, however, there is no further progress in the trial. The respondents filed a cross-version with the police which was dismissed as being without any substance vide Zimni No. 13, dated 7th of October, 2006. In the private complaint filed by Ijaz Ahmed-respondent No.1 the petitioner and others have been summoned by the learned trial court, however, it is interesting to note that the injuries allegedly suffered by the respondent at the hands of the complainant side were found to be dubious by the Medical Board inasmuch as it was observed by the Board that injury No.3 had been attempted to simulate like a fire-arm and corresponding tears in Shalwar for injuries Nos.2 and 3 have been made. Conspicuously, reference to the said report of the Medical Board is missing in the order impugned, meaning thereby that this aspect was not even considered by the learned Judge. The very basis for' extending the concession of bail had crumbled to the ground. Further, mere lodging of a private complainant and summoning of the accused for trial is by itself not sufficient to extend the concession of bail to respondents Nos.1 and 2, particularly in the presence of overwhelming incriminating material available on the record to connect them with the crime.

8. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in granting bail to respondents Nos.1 and 2 militates against the settled principle for the grant of bail. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the order, dated 27-3-2007, whereby respondents Nos.1 and 2 had been granted bail, is hereby recalled. They are present in the court and shall be taken into custody forthwith. H.B.T./G-101/L Bail cancelled.