SADDAM Versus State

ORDER

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.--- The petitioner/accused was booked for the above offences vide FIR No.12/16 of Police Station Airport Gilgit lodged on the complaint of one Nasir Ud Din son of Ghulam Mustafa, who is also victim of this unfortunate incident.

2. The petitioner/accused applied for bail after arrest before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, which was declined vide order/judgment dated 11.04.2016 and being not satisfied from the judgment/order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, he has approached this Court for the concession of bail.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that Section 324, P.P.C. is not attracted in the case and the injury sustained by the victim does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Per learned counsel there is a delay of one hour in lodging the FIR and this time has been consumed in cooking up a false story and further that the report of Forensic Expert is not available on record. The petitioner/accused did not repeat the fire shot and intention to kill is lacking in the case, which makes the case as one of the further inquiry.

4. The learned Dy.A.G. assisted by learned counsel for the complainant stated at bar that the petitioner/accused is directly charged in the FIR and he caused injury on the shoulder of the victim, which is a vital part of the body and the same has been certified as "Grievous" by the medical officer. The offence entails the punishment of 10 years, which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and disentitles the petitioner/accused for concession of bail.

5. As evident from the record that the matter was promptly reported to the police station, from the hospital, where the victim was admitted, in which accused was directly charged for opening fire shots on the victim and the injury has been declared as grievous by the medical officer of City Hospital Gilgit and during investigation of the case one .30 bore pistol has been recovered on the pointation of accused in presence of marginal witnesses of the locality.

6. The victim and the petitioner/accused are cousins inter se and no valid reason has been shown by the defense for false implication of the petitioner/accused in the crime.

7. Every criminal case has its own peculiar circumstances and when the mind of the Court is satisfied that the manner of occurrence and the other details collected during investigation coincide with the story put forth by the prosecution and prima facie connect the accused with the offence, the concession of bail should not be allowed.

8. As far as the intention to murder is concerned, it is suffice to say that when a fire arm is discharged targeting on vital part of the body, then if the victim luckily survives, the accused cannot be rewarded in alternate by extending him concession of bail only for the reasons that the shot did not prove fatal.

9. In the light of above discussions, counsel for the petitioner/accused failed to make out a good case for grant of bail, which is accordingly declined.

HBT/24/GB Bail refused.