Akhtar Ali Versus State
order
Salah-ud-Din, J .--- Petitioner namely Akhtar Ali, through instant petition, seeks his post arrest bail in case FIR No. 182 dated 29.7.2024, under sections 324, 337-D,337-F (i) P.P.C of P.S Batkhela, District Malakand. His earlier bail application has been dismissed by learned lower forum vide order dated 16.5.2025.
2. As per contents of ibid FIR, complainant namely Zafar Ali reported the matter to local police at casualty ward of Batkhela hospital in terms that on the fateful day, he along with his wife Mst. Bushra Bibi (injured) and mother-in-law Mst. Zar Bibi were present in their house. In the meanwhile, his brother namely Akhtar Ali (petitioner herein) came there and started quarrel with his mother-in-law over some pity issue. Petitioner all of a sudden took-out his pistol and started firing upon his wife Mst. Bushra Bibi, as a result of which, she got hit on front side of her belly, whereas rest of the complainant-party luckily escaped un-hurt. When complainant tried to overpower the accused, he was hit with butt of the pistol, due to which, he got injured on different parts of his body. In addition to complainant-party, subject occurrence was claimed to have been witnessed by other inmates of the house.
3. Arguments of learned counsel for parties as well as learned Astt: A.G for State were heard and requisitioned record gone through with their valuable assistance.
4. It divulges from bare perusal of record that present petitioner has directly and singularly been charged by injured/complainant qua his effective role of firing upon his wife Mst. Bushra Bibi as well as causing injuries on different parts of his body. There was no chance of mis-identification or false implication on part of complainant-party, as present petitioner was nobody else but real brother of the complainant and brother-in-law of injured PW Mst. Bushra Bibi coupled with the fact that the occurrence took place inside the premises of house of complainant-party. Version of complainant advanced in the FIR find its positive support from medico-legal report of injured, wherein medical officer had come up with an opinion that the injury inflicted upon person of injured PW Mst. Bushra Bibi was the result of firearm. Police have also recovered blood and a 30-bore crime empty from the spot along with blood-stained garments of the injured PWs. There was also a positive FSL report placed on file, whereby it was opined that one crime empty marked as "C" is that of 30-bore.
5. Tentatively, sufficient material has been brought on record by investigating agency against petitioner which prima facie shows his active participation in the occurrence constituting mischief of section 324 P.P.C, punishment of which falls within restrictive limb of section 497, Cr.P.C, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of bail. Wisdom is drawn from "Ghazan Khan v. Mst. Ameer Shuma and another" (2021 SCMR 1157) and "Aurangzeb v. The State and others" (2022 SCMR 1229).
6. It is also part of record that challan in the case in hand has already been put in Court and trial is in progress, therefore, matter is entirely left to the wisdom and discretion of learned trial Court who would be in better position to assess and evaluate prima facie guilt or otherwise of present petitioner after recording of evidence during the course of on-going trial.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner laid much emphasis on the point that petitioner had not repeated firing, therefore, if petitioner was having any intention to kill the injured PW, he would have made resort to repeated firing because at the relevant time she was at the sheer mercy of accused. He also added that in view of FSL report a single crime empty was shown recovered from spot, therefore, accused could at the most be saddled for an offence of hurt within the meaning of section 337-N (2) P.P.C. However, such arguments of learned counsel might have some worth and value at the time of final adjudication of the matter before learned trial Court but at the moment appreciation of such materials would no doubt amount to deep appraisal of prosecution evidence, which is neither desirable nor permissible at this stage of proceedings, hence, discarded. No doubt, petitioner has not repeated the fire shot, however, these arguments might have some utility if injured PW would have received injury on non-vital part of her body, then in that eventuality, his prima facie intention to kill the injured would have come into play which is not the case here. Even otherwise, vital part injury needs no repetition. In respect of rational of section 337 N (2) P.P.C, I am fortified to place reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in case titled "Dr. Anwar Farid v. The State and another" reported as 2012 YLR 1761 , whereby it was held that:
"Petitioner's contention that accused should be awarded bail as it was merely a case of Arsh or Daman, while punishment of imprisonment was discretionary, in terms of S. 337-N(2), which could only be awarded if accused was hardened and desperate criminal or was a previous convict while there was no such allegation against accused. Section 324 of P.P.C, 1860, had two parts to cope with two different situations. First part provided that accused/offender shall be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to ten years, if he does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances, that if he by that act caused Qatl, he would be guilty of Qatl-e-amd. No punishment of Arsh or Daman was provided for the offence falling within the ambit of first part of S. 324 of P.P.C, 1860. Second part of S. 324, P.P.C, 1860, provided that if any hurt is caused in the process of such act, the offender shall be liable to punishment, provided for hurt caused, in addition to the imprisonment and fine, mentioned in the first part. Accused's case was that of attempt to commit Qatl-e-amd, which entailed punishment of ten years while punishment for injuries caused to the victim was in addition to the imprisonment. Bail petition of accused was dismissed in circumstances."
8. In view of above discussion, instant petition stands dismissed. Subject observations recorded hereinabove are purely tentative in its nature and shall no way prejudice an independent mind of learned trial Court. However, learned trial Court shall ensure early conclusion of the trial at the earliest, preferably within four months, subject to positive cooperation of defence and prosecution to meet the ends of justice.
JK/19/P Petition dismissed.