ABDUL HAFEEZ Versus THE STATE
ORDER
A case under section 324, P.P.C. is said to have been got recorded 4/5 months before 8-3-1995 against Abdul Hafeez petitioner-accused and others by Abdul Majeed complainant. Abdul Hafeez complainant, accused was annoyed thereof. On 8-3-1995 within the area of Chak No. 12/13C at 6-00 p.m. there was the noise of running of motor-cycles coming from the street. Abdul Majeed was present in his house alongwith his brothers Gulzar Saleem and Tahir. He came out and saw that Abdul Hafeez petitioner-accused, Atique and Muhammad Hanif accused persons were driving the motor-cycles. They were asked in the matter when Abdul Hafeez uttered that they were in search of him (complainant). Abdul Hafeez brought out a Khanjar from his loin cloth and inflicted on the left arm-pit of Abdul Majeed. His alarm attracted Gulzar Saleem and Abdul Hafeez hit his left arm-pit. In the meanwhile Tahir also arrived who was injured with a Khanjar by Atique co-accused which hit his hand. Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Anwar P.Ws. were attracted to the spot. The accused persons fled away issuing the threats and also left one motor-cycle. F.I.R. No.68, dated 8-3-1995 stands registered under section 324/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Baghdad-ul-Jadid, Bahawalpur. The Medical Officer examined Abdul Majeed, Tahir Pervez and Gulzar Saleem. The Medical Officer expressed about the injury of Abdul Majeed as "an incised profusely bleeding wound 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. blind deep on the left lower chest on antero lateral aspect". The Medical Officer declared this injury as dangerous for life. He, also examined Tahir Pervez and found one injury on his left index finger. He also found one injury below the left arm-pit of Gulzar Saleem. The bail application of Abdul Hafeez has been rejected by the lower Courts. Hence this petition with the same desire:
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State Counsel and gone through the record before me. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been involved for the second time in the present occurrence due to animosity and that he did not take part in the occurrence. A perusal of the record produced by the prosecution has made me to hold a contrary view. As rightly expressed by the learned State Counsel the F.I.R. was promptly lodged. The occurrence took place when there could not be any dispute/mistake about the identification of the accused. There is the motive for the occurrence as well, Abdul Hafeez petitioner was armed with a' Khanjar and the occurrence took place in the street wherein the house of Abdul Majeed complainant is situated. Abdul Hafeez petitioner-accused injured Abdul Majeed complainant and his brother Gulzar Saleem. The injuries on the person of Abdul Majeed have been declared as dangerous for life by the medical witness. The Khanjar has been recovered at the instance of Abdul Hafeez accused on 15-3-1995 while he was on physical remand. The motor-cycle was also taken into possession by the police on 9-3-1995 from the place of occurrence by the police as the occurrence took place at 6-00 p.m. on 8-3-1995. With the material before me the prima facie involvement of Abdul Hafeez petitioner under section 324, P.P.C. is made out who alongwith his co-accused has also been charged by the trial Magistrate under section 324/34, P,P.C, on 24-4-1995. It is proper to express that section 324, P.P.C. falls within the prohibitory clause. Hence Abdul Hafeez petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to bail.
3. For what has been said above, I see no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.
N.H.Q./A-858/L Bail refused.