MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Versus THE STATE
ORDER
Muhammad Rafique, petitioner, is accused of having fired a shot with a .12 bore gun at Riaz Hussain injured PW at 6‑00 a.m. on 11‑8‑1987 and thereby to have committed an offence against Section 307 of the PPC. The prosecution case is that some two months before the incident, Muhammad Rashid, a brother of the petitioner was challaned under the Arms Ordinance and the petitioner suspected that his brother was arrested on account of the information supplied by Riaz Hussain to the police. On the day of incident, Riaz Hussain alongwith Muhammad Nawaz, complainant, was going to his Dhari when the petitioner emerged from the sugarcane crop of one Raja Muhammad Yaseen, he was armed with a .12 bore gun and had fired at Riaz Hussain. Some pellets hit Riaz‑ Hussain on his right foot and others hit the bicycle, on which Riaz Hussain was going. The petitioner fired the second time but the gun did not go off.
2. The petitioner was arrested on 14‑8‑1987 and was allowed bail by the learned trial Magistrate on 20‑10‑1987. On the application of Riaz Hussain injured PW, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, cancelled the bail of the petitioner by his order dated 11‑1‑1988. In the opinion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the offence against the petitioner fell under Section 307 of the PPC; the learned trial Magistrate was not entitled to allow bail to the petitioner on the mere ground that it was a case of further inquiry and that the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court was not in accordance with the settled principles of law.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that the injury being on the foot of Riaz Hussain, it cannot be said that the petitioner's intention was to kill him; according to him, if the intention was to kill, he would have fired from the closer range. As it was the shot has fired from a considerable distance, for, the pellets had spread, some hitting Riaz Hussain and the others hitting his bicycle. I do not think that by itself the fact that the pellets had hit Riaz Hussain as also the bicycle, he was riding on, affords reason to think that the shot was fired from a long distance. Learned counsel for the state points out with reference to the site‑plan that the shot was fired from a distance of 4 Karams. In any case, the facts are that the petitioner waylaid Riaz Hussain armed with a gun; and challenged him and had then fired at him and had tried to repeat the shot. In the absence of evidence that he had aimed the shot at the foot of Riaz Hussain. it cannot be said that his intention was to fire the shot so as to hit him on a non‑vital part. I do not see any reason for interference with the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The petition is rejected.
S.A./M‑707/L Bail refused.