LIAQAT ALI Versus THE STATE

ORDER

In order to reach at a just conclusion, I had directed the Investigating Officer to bring the judicial record so it may be seen that who is at fault about the delay in conclusion pf the trial in the instant case. I have gone through the interim orders. At least on dates of the hearing, witnesses including the injured P.W. were present but the case was adjourned on one pretext or the other.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that section 324, P.P.C. is not applicable in this case, that petitioner is behind the bars for the last 14 months, that not a single witness has been examined, that injury was caused on the non‑vital part of the body of injured P.W. and that case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, petitioner was armed with gun, he fired a shot which hit on the thigh of injured P. W., who is also present in Court. Section 324, P.P.C. is fully applicable in this case. Once an accused person presses the trigger, section 324, P.P.C. comes into existence. As far as delay in conclusion of the trial is concerned, at least on 3/4 dates of hearing, witnesses including the injured P.W. were present but the learned counsel got adjourned on one pretext or the other. Presently no case for interference is made put, therefore, this petition is dismissed. However, learned trial. Court is directed to conclude the trial in this case within two months on the receipt of order of this Court.

H.B.T./L‑99/L Bail application dismissed.