Syed AMAN Versus State

ORDER

ALI BAIG, J.--- Petitioners/Accused namely Sayed Aman and Wazeed seek post arrest bail in case FIR No.52/2017 dated 17.05.2017 registered under sections 324, 337-F and 448/34, P.P.C. and case FIR No 28/2018 registered under section 13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 at Police Station City, Chilas.

2. Succinctly facts of case as disclosed in the FIR No.52/2017 are that on 17.05.2017 accused/petitioner namely Syed Aman and his co-accused namely Riaz son of Tota assaulted on the complainant and his family members by enterring into their house and opened fires on them, whereas petitioner/accused namely Wazeed and Saif Ullah attempted to abduct daughter of the complainant namely Kulsoom. Resultantly, son of the complainant namely Sharifullah and daughter of the complainant namely Farhat sustained bullet injuries and the accused/petitioners have also pelted stones upon the complainant and his family members and complainant also sustained stone injuries. Motive behind the occurrence is stated to be that daughter of complainant namely Mst. Kulsoom had contracted marriage with petitioner/accused namely Syed Aman about 6/7 years ago and relations between the above named couple had become strained/soured and resultantly, the daughter of complainant namely Mst. Kulsoom has filed suit for dissolution marriage in the civil Court Chilas against the accused/petitioner namely Syed Aman.

3. Earlier the petitioners/accused had filed bail petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Diamer which was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Diamer vide order dated 22-05-2018, hence this petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/accused argued that sections 337-F and 448, P.P.C. are bailable, whereas section 324, P.P.C. does not attract to the case of the petitioners/accused. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further argued that a civil suit/matrimonial dispute between the complainant party and petitioner/accused namely Syed Aman is subjudice in the Civil Court Chilas, therefore, the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners/accused in this case with mala fide intention. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further argued that no any weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner/accused namely Wazeed, hence the petitioners/accused are entitled for concession of bail.

5. On the other hand the learned State counsel (Dy. A.G.) controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and contended that the petitioners/accused are directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR. The learned Dy. Advocate General further argued that offence under section 324, P.P.C. falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and weapon of offence has been recovered on the pointation of petitioner/accused namely Syed Aman, hence the petitioners/accused are not entitled for concession of bail.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused as well as the learned Dy. Advocate General and perused the record with their able assistance.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners/accused are directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR and offence under section 324, P.P.C. falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Petitioner/accused namely Syed Aman and his co-accused namely Riaz had opened fire shots on the complainant party and resultantly son and daughter of the complainant have sustained bullet injuries. Five crime empties of .30 bore pistol have been recovered from the place of occurrence and weapon of offence i.e. .30 bore pistol has also been recovered from the possession of accused/petitioner namely Syed Aman, by the police, as such he is not entitled for concession of bail.

8. As far as involvement of accused/petitioner namely Wazeed in this case is concerned, no specific role in the occurrence has been attributed to the above named accused/petitioner in the FIR. Moreover, no weapon of offence has been recovered on the pointation of petitioner/accused namely Wazeed, hence case to the extent of petitioner/accused namely Wazeed son of Iskander requires further inquiry. Thus, petitioner/accused namely Wazeed is entitled for concession of bail.

9. For what has been discussed above, this petition to the extent of petitioner/accused namely Wazeed is allowed and petitioner/accused Wazeed is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court and this petition to the extent of petitioner/accused namely Syed Aman is dismissed and bail to the above named petitioner is declined. File.

MQ/182/GB Bail granted.