SARFRAZ AHMED vs STATE and another

ORDER

The instant post arrest bail petition has been filed on behalf of Sarfraz Ahmad, who is behind the bars, in a case arising out of FIR No, 196/2008, dated 16.4.2008, registered in Police Station Sadder Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh, under Section 324 PPC.

2. Succinctly, the allegation, leveled by the complainant in the FIR, against the petitioner is that on 15.4.2008, at about 7.00 a.m. Sarfraz Ahmad/petitioner mounted a murderous assault on dst. Selma Ahmad by firing a shot with his pistol, which hit the victim on left side of her abdomen. The victim fell down on the floor after being seriously injured, whereupon the accused fled away from the scene of the occurrence in a vehicle, which was parked outside the house. The complainant alleged that the accused/Sarfraz Ahmad attempted to commit the murder of his sister, namely, Mst. Selma Ahmad, so that she could not claim het share out of the estate of her deceased husband, namely, Ch. Bashir Ahmad, who was the brother of the accused/present petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay of one day in lodging the FIR as the occurrence took place on 15.4.2008, whereas the FIR was lodged on 16.4.2008. He further submitted that the time of examination of the injured on the medicolegal report is written as 6.20 a.m., on 15.4.2008, whereas, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at about 7.00 a.m. on 15.4.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner denied that there was any intention on the part of the present petitioner to kill Mst. Salma, Ahmad as he did not repeat the fire. He argued that the petitioner is in the judicial lockup since 12.1.2010 and no longer required for any further investigation.

Lastly, he argued that the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry.

4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General as well as the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the instant bail petition on the ground that the accused/petitioner remained absconder for a period of at least one year and eight months and he was arrested on 9.1.2010. They further submitted that weapon of offence i,e, pistol has been recovered from the accused. They maintained that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for ten years and as such, his case falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. They argued that the accused/petitioner is an habitual offender as at least two other FIRs Bearing No, 61, dated 5.2.2007 and No, 22/2010, dated 11.1.2010, stand registered against him in Police Station City Gojra. Lastly, they submitted that the injury caused by the present petitioner, to the victim/Mst. Salma Ahmad, has been declared as "Jaifah", falling under Section 337-D PPC.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is the brother of the deceased husband of the victim/Mst. Salma, Bibi and there is no chance of his false implication in the instant case by the complainant. The victim/Mst. Salma Ahmad had no issue out of her marriage with Ch. Bashir Ahmad (deceased) who was the brother of the present petitioner. In these circumstances, the allegation that Sarfraz Ahmad/petitioner wanted to murder Mst. Salma Ahmad, so that she could not inherit the estate of her deceased husband, cannot be brushed aside. Secondly, the weapon of offence i,e, pistol has been recovered from the present petitioner, which, prima-facie, proves the causing of a fire-arm injury by the present petitioner to Mst. Salma Ahmad. Thirdly, the injury sustained by the victim has been declared as "Jaifah", which is punishable with ten years of imprisonment, as provided in Section 337-D PPC. Moreover, the present petitioner is also alleged to have committed the offence falling within the mischief of Section 324 PPC, punishment of which also falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.

7. It is also worth consideration that the petitioner has remained absconder for at least one year and eight months, prior to his arrest. No doubt, the bail cannot be refused to an accused merely on the account of absconsion but in the present case, the accused/present petitioner is even otherwise not entitled to the grant of bail, on merits. The present petitioner, prima-facie, had a motive to commit Qatl-e-Amd of Mst. Salma Bibi. While deciding a bail application, the Court has to make a tentative assessm ent of the available matter/evidence. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused did not repeat the fire is of no consequence at this stage. Finally, the present accused seems to be a habitual offender as at least two other FIRs, under various sections of PPC, stood registered against him.

8. In view of above, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused/present petitioner is guilty of an offence, punishment of which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1)

Cr.P.C. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the instant post arrest bail petition, filed on behalf of Sarfraz Ahmad, is dismissed.

9. However, a direction is being issued to the learned trial Court for conclusion of the trial against the accused/present petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months; from the date of receipt of this order.