SHER ZAMAN Versus THE STATE

Accused-petitioner Sherzaman has been refused bail by the leaned two Courts below in case F.I.R. No.117 dated 18-6-2002 of Police Station, Ghaznikhel, under section 324/34, P.P.C. and .now through the present application, he seeks bail from this Court.

2. According to the F.I.R., complainant Khizar Hayat, on the day of occurrence, was present inside Jadeed District Headquarter Hospital, Lakki Marwat when at about 14-30 hours the accused-petitioner and his co-accused Aziz Khan, duly armed with a Kalashnikov, came there and started firing at him with the intention of killing him, with which he received injuries. After the occurrence, the accused-petitioner and his co-accused decamped from the spot.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, the learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State assisted by Muhammad Yaqoob Khan, Advocate for the complainant and have also perused the record.

4. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner seeks his bail mainly on the grounds, firstly; that no time of occurrence has been given in the Murasila but the same has been later on added as 14-30 hours, secondly; that no empty shell has been recovered from the spot and the diamention of the injuries on the person of the complainant suggests that these have been caused with the fire of a shotgun but in the F.I.R., the weapon of offence has been shown as Kalashnikov and thirdly; it appears that one accused was involved in the commission of the offence but both the accused-petitioner and his co-accused had been charged in the F.I.R. as such, it is a case of further inquiry. However, all these arguments are without force for the simple reason that deep appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken at this stage and the same would be determined in the trial. Suffice it to say that the accused-petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R. and the prosecution version is supported by the medical evidence on record and recovery of blood-stained earth from the spot besides absconsion of more than four months of accused petitioner.

5. Accordingly, this application is without force and is hereby rejected.

S.A.K./853/P Bail refused.