MUHAMMAD NAEEM Versus State

ORDER

SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.--- The petitioner, Muhammad Naeem, seeks post-arrest bail in case bearing F.I.R. No.50 of 2004, dated 1-5-2004, registered under sections 324/337-L(ii)/337-F(i)/148/ 149, P.P.C., at Police Station, Sahuka, District Vehari.

2. According to the F.I.R., on 1-5-2005 at about 5-00 p.m. the complainant was on his way to get diesel and when he reached near Square No.12, Killa No.3, Chak No.317/BB, Qayyum, Mahboob and Yasin sons of Safdar were present there. They started giving fist blows, in result he sustained injuries. Muhammad Naeem, armed with pistol, in furtherance of common object, fired a shot at Nadeem Anjum, brother of the complainant, who had come there to rescue him, with intention to kill him, which hit him (Nadeem Anjum) in front of his abdomen. Nadeem Anjum fell down on the ground. Abdul Qayyum also gave beating to him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the petitioner was arrested on 1-9-2004 and since then he is behind the bars; that he is no more required for investigation; that challan has been submitted in Court on 25-9-2004 but no progress has been made so far; that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and his continuance in jail will amount to punishment at this stage when he has not been convicted by the Court of law; that there is delay of five hours in lodging the F.I.R., which has not been explained and that under section 324, P.P.C., the intention is to be seen which can only be ascertained when evidence is recorded. Prays that the petitioner may be allowed bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the earlier bail petition bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No.307-B of 2005 was moved by the present petitioner in this Court, which was withdrawn, therefore, grounds available for the present petitioner at that time cannot be looked into at this stage; that no fresh ground is available to the petitioner; that the delay of five hours in lodging of F.I.R. is normal. He opposed the bail petition and sought to be dismissed.

5. Arguments have been heard. Record has been perused.

6. The petitioner is admittedly named in the F.I.R. and a specific role has been attributed to him as he fired at the brother of the complainant namely Nadeem Anjum and a bullet hit in his abdomen due to which he fell down. Section 324, P.P.C. falls within the prohibitory clause. No case has been made out by the petitioner for further inquiry as laid down under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief by way of granting bail.

7. For what has been stated above, I see no merit in this petition, which is dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously and dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

N.H.Q./M-1163/L Bail refused.