ZAHID vs STATE & another

ORDER

Through this petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C. Zahid son of Sahib Din/petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 126, registered at Police Station Sarai Mughal, District Kasur, on 31-03-2010, in respect of offences under Sections 324, 376, 354, 511, 148 & 149, PPC, on the statement of Muhammad Umar complainant.

2. Brief facts of the case, per FIR, are that on the fateful day when the complainant along with his wife had gone to the fields and Mst. Zahida daughter of the complainant and his grand-daughter Mst. Shazia were present in the Court, Zahid/ petitioner entered into the house and caught hold of Mst. Shazia to commit zina with her. On hue and cry of Mst. Shazia, Mst. Zahida Bibi came there. The accused started abusing to her but in the meanwhile Irshad son of the complainant entered the house. Seeing him, the accused ran away from the spot by extending threats. After some time, Zahid and Irfan armed with .12-bore gun, Javed armed with Pistol and three unknown persons armed with fire-arms attacked upon the house of the complainant. When son of the complainant Shahzad came out of the house, Zahid/petitioner made a fire shot with his .12-bore gun, which hit on right side of chest of Shahzad. Second fire shot was made by Javed with his pistol which hit. on his left arm and the third fire shot of .12-bore made by Irfan also hit on the left arm of Shahzad. The fourth fire shot made by Zahid/ petitioner landed on the right side of chest of Shahzad, who smeared with blood. Thereafter all the accused ran away from the spot.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to FIR the petitioner was armed with .12-bore gun but after eight days the complainant made a supplementary statement wherein he specifically stated that the petitioner was armed with a pistol; the petitioner moved application for re-examination of Shahzad/injured, which was accepted by the learned trial Court and the injured was directed to appear before the Medical Board; the injured was summoned by the Board on three date's but he did not appear before it; the Investigating Officer had gone to the Hospital on the same day for recording statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but the victim was not available there as he had left the hospital on the same day; if the victim had received fire-arm injuries on his chest how he could leave the hospital on the same day and till today the nature of injuries suffered by the injured are not come on record; and that in such circumstances case of the petitioner is of one further inquiry.

4. Conversely, learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed this petition on the grounds that serious allegations have been leveled against the petitioner; the medical evidence supports the prosecution version; the offence attracts the prohibitory clause; earlier application seeking the similar relief has already been dismissed and all the grounds, which have now been agitated, were also available to the petitioner at that time; and thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail.

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

6. It has been noted that though according to FIR Shahzad has received fire-arm injuries on his chest and medico-legal report has been obtained in this regard but no final opinion has been given by the doctor therein. The injured was referred to the Medical Board for r--examination but despite summoning on three dates he did not appear before the Board. It is also pertinent to mention here that according to case diary dated 31-03 2010 when Investigating Officer reached Hospital for recording of statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he had already left the Hospital. If the injured had received fire-arm injuries on his chest, as alleged in the FIR, then how he could leave the hospital on the same day. The story narrated in the FIR has already been found partially incorrect as the motive part has not been established during investigation and co- accused, who were attributed similar injuries have been fund innocent qua the roles attributed to them and only Dandas have been recovered at their instance. So far any medical report specifying the nature of injuries suffered by the injured is not in possession of the prosecution. In the above circumstances, I feel that involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid manner requires further probe and inquiry into his guilt. As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that earlier, similar request was turned down by this Court is concerned, it is observed that the earlier petition was not decided on merits and the petitioner has a right to have the same decided on merit. Resultantly this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees One; Lac (Rs. 1,00,000/-), with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.