ABDUL MALIK Versus State

ORDER

ALI BAIG, J. ---Through the instant bail petition, the petitioner/accused namely Abdul Malik son of Khushal seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.24/2019 dated 17-10-2019, registered under sections 302, 148, 149, 324 and 337-F, P.P.C. at Police Station Jal, District Diamer.

2. The above named petitioner/accused had applied for post arrest bail vide bail petition No.66/2019 in the court of the learned Sessions Judge Diamer but his prayer was declined by the learned trial court vide bail order dated 13-12-2019, hence this petition.

3. The allegation as set forth in the crime report/FIR against the petitioner is that on 17-10-2019, at 15:30 hours, a quarrel was taken place between the complainant party and petitioner and his companions. Accused Haleem and Akbar Hussain opened fires on the deceased Abdul Karim brother of complainant with fire arm and murdered him, whereas, the present petitioner opened fire with fire arm at one Nasirullah with intention to kill him and he sustained injury.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the petitioner/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case with mala fide intention by the complainant party. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that it has been alleged in the FIR that the petitioner has opened fires on one Nasirullah and he has sustained bullet injury, but no medical report regarding injury of above named victim is available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the complainant party had also opened fires with fire arm on the petitioner and the petitioner had received injury and FIR No.26/2019 was also lodged against the present complainant party, hence the case of the petitioner is covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling further inquiry into his guilt and the petitioner is entitled for concession of bail.

5. As against, the learned Additional Advocate General and the counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed this bail petition and argued that the petitioner is directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role of effective firing on the victim. The learned Additional Advocate General and counsel for the complainant have further argued that offence under section 324, P.P.C. falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Advocate General and counsel for the complainant have further argued that eye-witnesses have witnessed the occurrence; hence, the petitioner is not entitled for concession of post arrest bail.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the record with their able assistance.

7. From perusal of contents of FIR, it shows that both the accused and complainant party were gathered at the place of occurrence to resolve a dispute regarding timber/firewood of their forests. During jirgah, a sudden fight was taken place between the parties. Resultantly, two FIRs bearing Nos.24/2019 and 26/2019 were registered against each other by the parties. Thus, this is a case of cross version and sudden fight. Moreover, as per prosecution version, the present petitioner had opened fire on one Nasirullah and he had sustained injuries, but no medical report regarding injury of victim namely Nasirullah is available on police record which creates serious doubt regarding involvement of the petitioner in the instant case. Benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused/petitioner even at bail stage. Even nature of injury has not been disclosed in the injury sheet. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for concession of post arrest bail as case of the petitioner is covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling further inquiry into his guilt.

8. For what has been discussed above, I am of the view that the petitioner has been able to make out the case for grant of bail and I am inclined to allow this petition. Consequently, the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 300,000/- (Rupees Three Lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Vacations/Duty Judicial Magistrate at Chilas. File.

ADN/11/GB Bail allowed.