ZADDIN KHAN Versus State
SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, J.--- Having been failed to get concession of bail from the learned court below, now through the instant CM Bail Petition, the petitioner Zaddin Khan seeks his release on bail from this Court in case FIR No.23 dated 16/01/2021 registered under sections 324/34/452, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Domel, District Bannu.
2. Briefly stated the facts as is evident from the FIR are that on 16.01.2021 at 15.00 hours, complainant Raz Muhammad along with injured Umer Nawaz reported the matter to the local police in the Emergency room of KGN hospital Bannu Township to the effect that on the eventful day he along with his nephew was standing in the street when in the meanwhile the petitioner along with others approached to the place of incident and started firing at them, which resulted into an injury to his nephew Khairullah, whereas he himself ran away from the spot to the house of one Umer Nawaz, where accused Usman son of Zaddin and Zaddin son of unknown entered into the said house and started firing at him with their respective weapons, which resulted an injury on the person of Umer Nawaz. After the occurrence, the accused decamped from the spot. Hence the FIR (ibid).
3. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties, learned Asstt. A.G. for the State and have gone through the record with their valuable assistance.
4. The record tells that the petitioner was armed with .12 bore shot gun, whereas his son namely Usman with a Kalashnikov. The injury on person of the victim, i.e. Umer Nawaz has been shown by the doctor, is 1 X 1 cm with no exit wound. Though at this juncture, number of the accused do not commensurate with the number of injures caused, but it cannot be a yard stick for releasing the accused/petitioner on bail, however, this Court cannot ignore one of the particular aspect of the case that keeping in view the size of injury, i.e. 1 x 1 cm on the person of the victim and the weapon attributed to the petitioner, i.e. .12 bore shot gun the possibility is there that it was from the fire shot of the petitioner that the victim received the injury. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that some of the accused were released on bail by this Court and that the petitioner also deserve to be treated in the like manner but he ignored that the other accused who were released on bail, were charged for an injury, in which respect, even the doctor, who prepared the case summary, could not explain that it was fire arm injury and the opinion reached to by the doctor in CMH Bannu was based on information provided by the victim namely Khairullah regarding the weapon used, so in that eventuality, the petitioner cannot press into service the rule of consistency as in the episode two got injured at different intervals, so the release of the accused on bail, will not benefit the petitioner as his case stands on different footings. The seat of injury is on non vital part of the body and there is no question of mistaken identity, as the parties are known and related to each other. The petitioner could not succeed in making out a case for his release on bail. Resultantly this bail petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.
SA/126/P Bail declined.