FURQAN Versus RAWSHAN KHAN

ORDER

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.--- The instant Criminal Miscellaneous has been filed by the petitioner Furqan son of Jamdar Khan in a case FIR No.12/2019 dated 12.07.2019, which was lodged by one Muhammad Ayub, son of the petitioner. The respondents were allowed bail by the learned Vacation/Sessions Judge Gilgit vide judgment/order dated 26-07-2019.

2. The gist of allegations narrated in the FIR have been mentioned in para-2 of the impugned judgment, which is reproduced as under:-

"The allegation against the accused/petitioner as per FIR are that petitioners caretaker Faqir Shah son of Siraaj was sleeping near fish tank in the meanwhile right after morning prayers six people attacked by deconstructing wall of under construction house while applicant was sleeping at home. On call of Faqir Shah petitioner/applicant reached at place of occurrence and spotted some strangers later on it was revealed that they arrived on a motor cycle and a vehicle to the house of Rawshan Khan, amongst them two were from Darail while Rawshan Khan, Nasir Khan, Niat Ullah belongs to Aliabad. They were present on the spot and attacked the petitioner. The boys from Darial were carrying pistols and they tried to open fire on the application which remains ineffective fortunately. Witnesses of occurrence are present."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submitted that the respondents are directly charged in the FIR with a specific role of attempting on the life of the complainant and his companion. The learned counsel further submitted that both the parties are from the same village and the occurrence took place in a day light. The offence under section 324, P.P.C. falls within prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C. and this fact of the case has not been adverted to while granting bail to the respondents. The recoveries in the instant case have been effected from the respondents, which further strengthen the case of the complainant/petitioner. There was a prima facie case against the respondents and the bail granting order be recalled and the respondents be committed to judicial lockup to stand trial.

4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that respondent Adam Safa and Barkat are not nominated in the FIR, no specific role is attributed to Rawshan Khan, Muhammad Nasir and Karamat. No one sustained any grievous injury during the so-called fight. There is a land dispute between the parties, which prompted the complainant to rope in the maximum persons of the rival group. The bail to the respondents was allowed considering the case as one of the further inquiry and when bail is granted on the ground of further inquiry very solid and strong grounds are required for cancellation of the same. Which are not available in the instant case. The petition be dismissed in the large interest of the justice as there are no allegations of misuse of the concession of bail.

5. The lengthy arguments from both the sides heard and record of the case perused. Two of the respondents/accused namely Adam Safa and Barkat are not nominated in the FIR, although it was a day light occurrence and both the parties hails from the same village. None from the complainant party sustained any grievous injury. The attraction of section 324, P.P.C. requires further inquiry. The bail granting order does not suffer from any legal infirmity, which is maintained and bail cancellation application is dismissed.

SA/118/GB Petition dismissed.