RAMZAN alias JAN QAZI vs The STATE and another

' KHALID MEHMOOD, J.---Petitioner Ramzan alias Jan Qazi seeks his release on bail in case F.I.R.

No.848 dated 23-8-2012 under sections 324/452/34, P.P.C. Police Station Mirpur, as he has been refused bail by the courts below.

2. As per contents of F.I.R. The complainant has charged the accused petitioner and others for effective firing, as a result which the complainant, Mst. Sumaira and Muskan were hit and sustained injuries. Motive was stated to be land and path dispute.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is a cross-version report and both the parties have allegedly sustained injuries. It was argued that accused petitioner has been charged for injuring the child Muskan, who allegedly sustained the injury on non-vital part. It was argued that offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for State assisted by learned counsel for complainant opposed the bail petition and argued that accused petitioner is directly charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R. And the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. Arguments heard and record perused.

6. There is also counter version as advanced by the defence counsel on the ground that the case vide F.I.R. No.177 and another case vide F.I.R. No.850 have also been registered against the complainant party. The petitioner has lodged the report in injured condition while he was admitted in the hospital.

7. Counsel for complaMant/ respondent through raised objection that both the F.I.Rs. Are regarding different times of occurrence and, therefore, it has no nexus with the present case.

8. However, in both the F.I.R. Parties and place of occurrence is the same. It will be seen at the trial stage as which party is the aggressor and who was aggressed upon. A single injury has been attributed to the petitioner and that too on the non-vital part of the minor and there is no allegation of repetition of fire shot against the petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested on the very day of the occurrence from the hospital, who had also sustained injuries in the same transaction. The prosecution has also concealed the injury sustained to the petitioner though he was found admitted in the hospital in connection of alleged series of same occurrence. Whether all the three said cases are cross-cases or relate to different events will be seen at the trial stage. Due to reasons mentioned above the present case comes within the ambit of further enquiry. The petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest and no more required for the purpose of investigation. In this view of the matter keeping petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period waiting conclusion of trial would serve no useful purpose.

9. Consequently, this bail petition is allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Ilaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate.