1. G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.--In consequence of F. I. R. No. 15, dated 31-1-1978 lodged at Police Station, Ghazi, District Abbottabad, petitioner herein was arrested under section 307, P. P. C. For having caused to Mst. Tasleem Jan, a young woman, a fire-arm injury in her eye as a result of which she is said to have lost the use of the said eye permanently. A cross-case was also registered at the same Police Station from the side of the petitioner saying therein that the petitioner had in the fight with the other side been given a blunt weapon injury on his head. It is conceded, however, that the said injury suffered by the petitioner was found by the Medical Officer to be simple in nature. And so no action seems to have been taken by the Investigating Agency against the other side. The admitted position, however, is that initially the petitioner was refused bail by the Ilaqa Magistrate. But the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur, granted him bail vide his order, dated 13-5-1978.
2. Against the said order respondents 2 and 3 herein moved the High Court, and the learned Chief Justice of the High Court cancelled the bail of petitioner vide his order, dated 17-7-1978.
3. Mr. Kowkab Iqbal, the learned Advocate has contended that the learned Chief Justice of the High Court was wrong to cancel the bail of his client, as the fight between the parties had led to the filing of cross-cases against each other ; that the version given in the F. I. R. About the injury suffered by Mst. Tasleem Jan was that the same had been caused by fire-arm whereas according to the medical evidence it had been caused by a blunt weapon ; that. According to the medical opinion the F. I. R. In this case was lodged against the petitioner after appreciable delay ; that the alleged crime weapon, namely, the revolver and the empties were handed to the Investigating Agency by the complainant party and the semi have not been sent for the opinion of the Fire-Arms Expert ; that no blood was recovered from the spot ; that the challan has been submitted in the Court ; but the prosecution has been avoiding to produce its evidence ; and that Mst. Tasleem Jan has since been discharged from the hospital, and consequently the High Court should have declined to cancel the bail of the petitioner. In support of these submissions the learned counsel has relied on Khalid Javed Gillan v. The State (PLD 1978 SC 256).
4. A perusal of the order of the learned Chief Justice would show that he had cancelled the bail of the petitioner for very cogent reasons. He noted that in consequence of the fire-arm injury Mst.
5. Tasleem Jan had lost her eye ; that the occurrence had taken place in broad daylight ; that the petitioner was overpowered on the spot by the complainant party and recovered from him the crime weapon, namely, a revolver in the chamber of which was found one empty and one missed cartridge. It was on this basis that the learned Chief Justice held that the bail granting order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was improper and consequently recalled the same as illegal. In the concluding part of his order, however, he observed that since the challan has already been put in the Court, the prosecution must produce its evidence positively within two months whereafter the trial should be concluded as soon as possible.
6. It would thus be seen that the learned Chief Justice had upon the appraisal of whatever material was placed before him by the parties passed the impugned order. This is precisely what this Court has laid down ill the case of Ahahd Javed Gillan v. The State on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that in the; impugned order of the High Court no mention has been made of the cross. Case filed by the petitioner herein. But that omission, in view of the; peculiar circumstances of this case, would seem to be technical. It is conceded that from the side of the petitioner only the petitioner had received a lacerated injury on his head which according to the Medical Officer was simple in nature. From the other side, however, Mst. Tasleem Jan, Faza1 Amin and complainant Muhammad Afzal were injured out of whom, Mst. Tasleem Jan was shot in her eye as a result of which she is said to have lost the permanent use of that eye. It is, therefore, obvious that by keeping the two rival cases in juxtaposition with each other no exception can be taken to the impugned order of the High Court-specially when. The petitioner is accused of having used a revolver in consequence of which Mst. Tasleem Jan has been deprived of the use of one eye permanently.
7. We are, therefore, satisfied that upon the facts of this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was wholly wrong to allow bail to the petitioner who was accused under section 307, P. P. C.
8. Endorsing the. View taken by the learned Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, therefore, this petition which seems to have no force in it is dismissed.