BAKHSHOO Versus STATE

ORDER

1. Applicant Bakshoo seeks bail in F.I.R. vide Crime No.82 of 1992 of Police Station, Khanpur Mahar, Taluka Mirpur Mathelo for an offence under sections 307, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. read with section 324, Q&D Ordinance and 13-D of the Arms Ordinance.

2. The prosecution story is that complainant (injured Jamal) on 14-12-1994 at about 18-05 hours lodged his F.I.R., alleging therein that on 14-12-1994 he, his father Sawan, and his relative Karimdad were going to their lands on a tractor to collect the cotton and wheat crop. At about 4 p.m., when they reached near Mevo Graveyard, he found five persons Bakhso (present applicant/accused), and co-accused Ranjho, Rehan and Pandhi, were standing there, Bakhshoo (present applicant) and co-accused Ranjho were having guns while the others were armed with Lathis. Applicant Bakhshoo is alleged to. have abused the complainant and told him that he will not be spared saying so Bakhshoo fired from his gun at the complainant, which hit him. Thereafter all the accused ran away. Complainant lodged F.I.R. and police started investigation. The motive alleged for the offence is that about a month prior to this incident there was altercation between complainant and accused/applicant Bakhshu over the dispute of children.

3. I have heard Mr. Assardas Advocate appearing for the applicant, who has urged that accused/applicant deserves bail as there is no motive for accused/applicant to commit QatL-e-Amd and that the injuries sustained by injured are not dangerous for life. He has also cited case-law P L D 1992 Pcsh. 111, 1994 P Cr. L J 1293-1294.

4. I have gone through the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. The authorities are quite distinguishable and are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

5. I have also heard Mr. Khadim Ali Shoro, learned counsel appearing for the AA.-G. for the State, who has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. I have gone through the file and found that bail application for present accused/applicant was moved in this Court and it was dismissed having been withdrawn in April, 1993, but it is very strength to note that learned counsel for the applicant has not taken trouble to produce the order of the Court or even he has not mentioned the number of the bail application so that it could have been called for from the office. But at the time of arguments when= it was pointed out to him that in the memo of his bail application at page 3, it has been mentioned that bail application for applicant/accused was moved in the Court which was dismissed having been withdrawn in April, 1993 and after that no any fresh ground has been made out for the presentation of this bail application. On the contrary in the trial Court, complainant Jamal (injured) has been examined and he has fully implicated the. accused/applicant, and it is found that cross-examination for accused Bakhsho has not been carried on, which means that version of the complainant has been accepted by the defence in toto. P.W. Sawan has also been examined who has implicated the accused in the commission of the crime and third witness Dr. Moula Bux has been examined and he has produced the medical certificate showing there in that injured Jamal has suffered one crushed lacerated wound with irregular margins of about size 10 c.m. x 6 c.m. x bone deep on the lower part of the leg above the ankle-joint, anterior medially in direction. The injury was referred for X ray examination and after X-ray examination while X-ray film No.875, dated 14-12-1992, which has shown fracture of lower part of Tibia and Febula. The nature of the injuries has been certified by the Doctor as grievous caused by fire-arm.

7. In view of the above evidence so far produced by the prosecution in the trial Court. Direct role has been assigned to the applicant/accused in the F.I.R., coupled with motive and furthermore that three prosecution witnesses who have been examined in the trial Court, they have fully implicated the accused/applicant.

8. The bail application filed on behalf of accused/applicant in this Court i was dismissed as withdrawn in April, 1 993 as such there is no fresh ground for this bail application.

9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case prima facie, the case punishable under sections 307, 147, 148,

149. P.P.C. read with section i 324, Q&D Ordinance, and 13-D, Arms Ordinance, is made out against the accused/applicant, for which he is facing trial. By my short order, dated 11-7-1994, I had dismissed the bail application. These are the reasons for the same.

10. N.H.Q./B-256/K Bail refused.