SAQIB UD DIN Versus State
ORDER
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.--- The petitioners were booked for the offences under sections 324, 337-A/34, P.P.C. vide FIR No.56/16 dated 29.10.2016 registered at Police Station Airport Gilgit.
2. The petitioners applied for bail in the Court of learned Sessions Judge Gilgit which was declined vide order/judgment dated 16.11.2016 and being dis-satisfied from the order of learned Sessions Judge, the petitioners have come to this Court for concession of bail.
3. The brief facts of the occurrence as highlighted in the FIR are as under:-
"Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this bail petition are that the complainant namely Shams Khan son of Juma Khan resident of Sonikote Gilgit had registered the above mentioned FIR against the present petitioners/accused on 29.10.2016 stating therein that the above named accused/petitioners are his first cousins and there was a civil litigation with the petitioners regarding a piece of land. The learned Civil Judge Gilgit and District Court Gilgit have passed judgment/decree in his favour. On 29.10.2016 the complainant was sowing seeds of grass on the disputed land. At about 03:30 p.m. the above named accused/petitioners came to the place of occurrence and attacked on the complainant. Accused namely Saqib ud Din caught hold the complainant whereas, accused/petitioner namely Naeem ud Din hit the complainant with the butt of pistol and the complainant received injuries. Thereafter, the accused/petitioner namely Naeem ud Din opened fire with pistol on the complainant with intention to kill him which missed luckily. The occurrence was witnessed by son of the complainant namely Sajid Ali."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted at bar that the case is false and the petitioners have been booked in the case due to a land dispute. The learned counsel submitted that the complainant did not receive any injury, thus the intention to kill is missing, which is a pre-requisite to attract the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner Saqib ud Din and only allegation against him is that he caught hold of the complainant and afforded an opportunity to his co-accused to open fire on the complainant, which luckily did not hit him, thus his case is distinguishable from the co-accused Naeem ud Din. He relied on 2009 SCMR 181, 2009 YLR 344, 2014 PCr.LJ 261, 2013 PCr.LJ (sic.), PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 944 in support of his contentions.
5. On the other hand the learned Dy. A.G. for the State opposed the bail petition and contended that it was a day light occurrence and both the accused are directly charged in the FIR and a specific role of participation is attributed to them. A .30 bore pistol has been recovered from the possession and on the pointation of accused Naeem ud Din, which prima facie link the petitioners with the offence under section 324, P.P.C. Section 324, P.P.C. falls within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C. He prays that the petition be dismissed in the interest of justice as both the petitioners came at the place of occurrence with common intention and provisions of section 34, P.P.C. are fully attracted in the case.
6. The petitioners are directly charged in the FIR which was promptly lodged. Both the petitioners participated in the occurrence as stated by the complainant, but it is yet to be determined at the time of trial, as to what was the necessity of catching hold of the complainant by the petitioner/accused Saqib ud Din, when his co-accused (real brother) Naeem ud Din was to open fire shot on the complainant with a .30 bore pistol, which was later on recovered from the accused Naeem ud Din. The case of accused/petitioner Saqib ud Din is distinguishable from the co-accused Naeem ud Din. Accused Saqib ud Din son of Firous Khan is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- ( Rupees five lac) with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate at Gilgit, while the bail up to the extent of accused Naeem ud Din is declined.
JK/236/GB Order accordingly.