Zia-Ur-Rehman vs The State And Another

ORDER

ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - Petitioner, Zia-ur-Rehman's son of Muhammad Aslam, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 125, dated 12.07.2012, for offences under Sections 324/34, 337-F(i.e), 337-F(vi), P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Talagang, District Chakwal.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as unfolded in the F.I.R, got lodged on the statement of Sagheer Iqbal son of Muhammad Iqbal is that the complainant runs a Hi-ace; on the day of occurrence he after boarding the passengers left for Talagang and when he reached near his land adjacent to the road wherein the crop of millet was grown, he saw that the waste water of the village was coming towards his fields and Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Islam armed with Wahola and pistol, respectively, were diverting the water towards the Jungle, he forbade them from doing so whereupon Muhammad Aslam ,while shouting said his sons to kill him after making fire-shot; at that moment Muhammad Aslam with intent to kill, made a straight fire which hit the complainant on his left leg causing him to fall down; on hearing the hue and cry his maternal-uncle, namely, Nazar Hussain attracted to the spot; on seeing him Zia-ur-Rehman's petitioner fired a straight shot which hit Nazar Hussain on his right thigh who after sustaining serious injury also fell down. The incident was witnessed by the witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R, and others.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely roped in this case due to ulterior motive of the complainant; that co- accused of the petitioner, namely, Muhammad Aslam, who is father of the petitioner, was allowed bail by the learned Area Magistrate by accepting his plea of alibi; that on the day of occurrence he was not present at the spot, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief; that the petitioner remained on physical remand for ten days but nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession; that the offence under Section 324, P.P.C., is not made out as the shot fired by the petitioner did not hit the vital part of the body of the petitioner; that the petitioner is behind the bars and no more required for the purpose of investigation. Places reliance on Muhammad Umar v. The State and another (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 477); Dilawar Khan v. The State and another (2004 YLR 431 (Peshawar); Shafique-ul-Haq v. The State (2008 P.Cr.L.J. 917(Shariat Court (AJ&K); Jan Muhammad v. Haji Noor Jamal and another (1998 SCM R 500) to argue that since the accused has fired on the outer side of the right leg's middle part of the injured witness and, prima facie, he appeared to have no intention to fire upon any vital part of the said witness for the purpose of launching murderous assaut - the accused^was admitted to bail.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant takes the stand by arguing that the co-accused who was granted bail was only attributed a lalkara, so he was' not held guilty for offence under Section 324, P.P.C. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned he is named in F.I.R, with a specific role of causing injury on the right thigh and as per copy of MLR it was declared as Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Munaqillah falling under Section 337;F(vij, P.P.C., . Which is a non-bailable offence, and entails maximum ' punishment of 7 years, therefore, he is hot entitled for grant of post-arrest bail. He places rellanc^^' Noor' Muh$mrria& v'. 'The State and another (2010 PLD (Lahore) 'and Muhammad Shabhir v. The State (2008 ft Cr.LJ. 1338(Lapore) and prays for dismissal of the bail application. {{WORDS BLURR}}

5. Learned p.F.G. Has also opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on, the ground that the offence with which the petitioner is charged falls within the prohibitory clause pf Section 497, Cr.P.C.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as weil as the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perused the available record.

7. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R, with a specific role of causing injury oh the right thigh of the injured. Challan has already been submitted in the Court and the charge has been framed. At this stage I would not like to comment on the merits of the case as it would amount to prejudice the case of either side, suffice it to say that the offence with which the petitioner is charged, falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section497, Cr.P.C. The case- law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of this case. At this stage no case for bail L*made out, the petition stands dismissed.