USAMA Versus State

SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, J .---After having been booked in case FIR No.05 dated 10.01.2021 under section 324 P.P.C. Police Station Ghazni Khel, District Lakki Marwat, the petitioner applied for post arrest bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Lakki Marwat, which was declined vide Order dated 27.04.2021. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court through the instant bail petition.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.01.2021 at 14.00 hours, the complainant Muhammad Jamshid in injured condition reported the matter in emergency room at DHQ hospital, that on the eventful day at about 13.15 hours, he along with Asif Iqbal were going on foot towards Adda, that he was ahead while Asif Iqbal was behind him at some paces. When they reached to a public street near the house of accused, then accused Usama armed with Kalashnikov came out from his house and started firing with intention to kill them. Resultantly, he was got hit while Asif Iqbal escaped unhurt luckily. Accused proceeded to his house after commission of the offence. Motive for the occurrence was stated to be the outstanding amount of the accused to the father of the complainant, hence, the instant FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the parties along with learned Asstt: A.G. representing the State, were heard at length and with their valuable assistance the record was gone through.

4. The record tells that the complainant on reaching to the hospital in injured condition reported the matter to the local police by charging the petitioner for effective firing at him. The matter was promptly reported which excludes the possibility of consultation and deliberation, whereas the medico legal report tells that the complainant received firearm entry wound on his chest with its exit on his back which is vital part. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued the case at some considerable length, stressing with the recovery of blood from the place of incident, but that alone is not sufficient to make the case of the petitioner, that of further inquiry.

5. The motive was stated to be the outstanding amount of the accused to the father of the complainant as the parties are known to each other and the incident occurred in the brought day light, so there is no chance of mistaken identity.

6. The cumulative effect of what has been stated above leads this court to an inescapable conclusion that the petitioner is not succeeded in making out a case for bail. The instant petition is bereft of merit stands dismissed.

SA/197/P Bail declined.