' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioners seek bail before arrest in case F.I.R.
No,655, dated 24-7-2006 for offences under sections 324/34, 109, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Shadbagh, Lahore,
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Muhammad Ali along with his brother Shaukat All went to gymnasium of Akram Butt in order to demand money given by the complainant to said Akram Butt as "Amanat". However, on his demand Anwar Butt petitioner No,1 told his brothers to fire at the complainant in order to teach him a lesson for demanding return of the money from him; whereupon petitioners Nos.2 and 3 fired straight at the complainant with their pistols who on receiving injuries fell down and was taken to the hospital by his brother.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was a delay of 2 days in lodging of the F.I.R. Which had not been explained; that the mala fide of the complainant was evident from the fact that he had gone to the place of petitioners in order to collect "Jagga Tax" from them; that the medical evidence was in conflict with the ocular account as there was only one injury mentioned in the F.I.R. Whereas in the medical report the complainant is stated to have suffered two fire-arm injuries; that there was no direct evidence against the petitioners except solitary statement of the complainant which could not be relied upon and lastly contended that the petitioners had applied for constitution of medical board to examine the complainant as the injuries on his person were self-inflicted, hence, the case against the petitioners was one of further enquiry and they were entitled to the concessions of pre-arrest bail.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the F.I.R. Was recorded by the police at the hospital which was evident from the "Karwai Police" mentioned at the end of the F.I.R., hence the delay could not be attributed to the complainant; that the petitioners were nominated in the F.I.R. And specific role of inflicting injuries to the complainant by fire-arm weapons had been ascribed to them; that the occurrence was a day time occurrence and there was no chance of mistaken identity; that the medico-legal report supported the eye-witness account mentioned in the F.I.R. As two wounds of entry were found on the person of the complainant with an exit wound corresponding to injury No,1; that 10 empties had been recovered from the spot by the police; that the presence of the accused was admitted by the petitioners in the petition itself; the weapons of offence had yet to be recovered from the petitioners; that the complainant on account of the injuries received at the hands of the petitioners remained in the hospital for one month and had been paralyzed from waist down and that the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. Were fully attracted to the case of the petitioners, hence they were not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest. Bail particularly as they had no surrendered to the police after dismissal of their bail application by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. No doubt, there is a delay of two days in lodging of the F.I.R., however, the same has been adequately explained in the "Karwai Police" recorded at the end to the FIR, The occurrence is a day time occurrence and petitioners have been nominated in the F.I.R. Specific role of inflicting injuries with fire-arm weapons to the complainant at the instigation of petitioner No,1 is ascribed to them.
The complainant after receipt of injuries was taken to the Mayo Hospital by his brother where he remained admitted for a month. As a result of the injuries suffered by the complainant at the hands of the petitioners, he is stated to be paralyzed from waist down. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the injuries were self-suffered does not appeal to common sense as the injuries are so severe and the locale of the injuries is such that possibility of the same being self-suffered is absurd and can be safely ruled out. The petitioners are further connected with the crime by the recovery of 10 empties from the spot. No mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police for possible false involvement of the petitioners in the case could be pointed out by the petitioners except that the complainant had come to collect "Jaggy Tax" from petitioner No,l. It is an admitted fact that the complainant was an employee of the petitioners at their "Gym" who could not by any stretch of imagination, resort to such an act against his own employees. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to mala fide of the complainant as such has no force. Weapons of offence have yet to be recovered from petitioners Nos.2 and 3 who along with petitioner No,1 after dismissal of their bail application by the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not surrender to the police and escaped froth the learned Court. The statement of the complainant is also on the record which further connects the petitioners with the prosecution case. The offence under section 324, P.P.C. Is fully made out from the record of the case which is hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In view of the part assigned to the petitioners in the F.I.R. And the locale of the injuries mentioned therein, fully corroborated by the medico-legal report, it can be safely said that prima facie there is enough tangible evidence on the record to connect the petitioners with commission of crime alleged against them.
7. Resultantly, the petition being without merit is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.