SULLEMAN Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. The F.I.R. in this case was registered on 13-6-1999 for offences under sections 324, 337-F(ii), 334, 504 and 34, P.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Shahdadpur rejected the bail application on 18-9-1999 mentioning as under:--

2. "After hearing the Advocate for both the parties and perusal of record it transpires that the name of the accused appear in the F.I.R. and present accused was armed with revolver who fired shots upon P.W. Galo which hit him on his legs. The ocular version of prosecution is supported by the medical evidence and medical officer has certified the injury Nos.1 and 3 caused by fire-arm to injured Galo. The delay in lodging F.I.R. is already explained by the complainant in his F.I..R. The accused has also made confession before the Judicial Magistrate, Shahdadpur on 24-7-1999 confessing his guilt of firing revolver shots upon P.W. Galo. The offence with which the accused is charged viz. sections 324, 337-F(ii), P.P.C. is punishable for 10 years R.I. therefore, case on the accused fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. There is sufficient material with the prosecution to connect the accused with the offence, hence no case for grant of bail is made out."

3. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the offence is punishable upto 5 years' imprisonment and he has referred to decision reported in 1994 SCMR 2051, wherein bail was granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case where gun injury was on ankle of the injured and it was not on vital part of the body. It has been held that the injury fell under the provisions of section 337-F(ii), P.P.C. (as amended) and did not fall within the prohibitory clause. He refers to decision reported in PLD 1995 SC page 34. He also submits that according to F.I.R. the accused Ghulam Mustafa had cut off ears of Galo with his knife but he was not been challaned. He submits that the revolver has not beers recovered from the present applicant/accused.

4. Mr. Bahadur Ali Baloch, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the grant of bail is there is judicial confession of the accused; he has used fire-arm and fire-arm injury is there; medical evidence supports he ocular version.

5. The offence is not likely to fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and in view of decision reported in PLD 1995 SC, page 34, bail has been granted in such case. Apart from that why person who is stated to have used knife according to F.I.R. has not been challaned, therefore, it also become a case where further inquiry is required. I, therefore, grant bail to the applicant object to furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Fifty thousand) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

6. H. B. T. /S-72/K Bail granted.