MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus STATE

The petitioner who is involved in a case under section 324/34, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. NO-109 of 1993, dated 3-9-1993, registered at Police Station Wan Bhachran, District Mianwali, seeks to be admitted to bail.

2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that he at the exhortation of his father fired with his .12 bore gun which hit on the legs of Ghulam Muhammad.

3. - The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant party attacked the petitioner and his father when they were doing their job on the brick-kiln and if any injury is caused to the injured P.W. that too was caused in self-defence by the petitioner who had a licensed gun with him. The injuries are on the non-vital part of the body of the injured P.W. and the petitioner never intended to commit Qatl-e-Amd, only he wanted to scare of the complainant party, which was aggressor party. The challan has been submitted in Court but yet no person has been examined as witness in this case. In the presence of the material referred to above, the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry as it would be determined after the recording of some evidence whether actually the petitioner acted in self -defence or he caused injuries as mentioned in the F.I.R. hence he is entitled to the grant of bail.

4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer, has opposed this bail application on the ground that the petitioner while armed with gun has caused injuries on the legs of the injured P.W. which has caused extensive damage to his legs.

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

6. Admittedly, the petitioner has taken up this defence before the Police when he was arrested on 21-10-1993 that he acted in self-defence. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner alongwith his father was doing some brick-kiln job in their own land which was in their possession, mere assertion of the complainant party that. the land belongs to him, would not give him any right to take away the possession of the land without having s recourse to law, hence the defence version seems to be plausible, so the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry. The petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C., Mianwali.

N.H.Q./M-1534/L Bail allowed,