The petitioner, Sadullah son of Ghulam Haider, seeks his release on bail in case FIR No, 247 dated 31/10/2007 registered under Section 324 PPC in Police Station Paharpur D.I.Khan, as he has remained unsuccessful to get the concession of bail from the learned two Courts below vide orders dated 4/3/2008 and 17/3/2008 respectively.
2. The prosecution case as reflected in the FIR lodged by the complainant Rahmatullah in emergency room of Civil Hospital Paharpur on 31/10/2007 at 1320 hours is that on the fateful day he alongwith his brother Aslam was present in his house when its door was knocked whereupon they both came out of the house and found Sadullah son of Ghulam Haider present there. On inquiry by the accused from Aslam Khan that why his children were beaten by his children, the brother of the complainant replied that he did not know about the quarrel between the children due to which the accused became angry and by taking out pistol from the trouser fold effectively fired at the complainant with which he was hit on back side, whereafter the accused decamped from the spot.
Besides the complainant and his brother Aslam Khan, the occurrence was stated to have been witnessed by Qayyum son of Haqnawaz, their co-villager. Motive for the occurrence was due to the quarrel between the children.
3. Mr. Mohammad Waheed Anjum, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that in the given facts and circumstances, the prosecution story is unbelievable; that the medical evidence is not in line with the ocular account furnished by the complainant; that the accusations are not supported by the site-plan; that neither any empty has been recovered from the place of occurrence nor any blood therefrom; that the provisions of Section 324 PPC are not attracted to the facts of the case in hand; that the punishment provided under the law for the offence is likely to fall under Section 337 PPC which alone would entitle the accused/petitioner to the concession of bail; that civil and criminal cases are pending between the parties and thus the complainant has falsely involved the accused in the instant crime; that investigation in the case is complete and the accused is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Reliance in this respect was placed on the judgments reported as Jan Muhammad Vs. Noor Jamal etc; (1998 SCM R 500), Muhammad Shafique Vs. The State (2007 M LD 736), Aurangzeb Vs. The State etc; (1999 P.Cr.L.J. 230), Waris etc. Vs. State (2000 P.Cr.LJ. 642), (Moulvi Nazar Muhammad Vs. State) (2000 P.Cr.L.J. 1174), (Noor-ur- Rahman .Vs. The State) (2000 P.Cr.L.J. 1603.
4. Mr. Muhammad Karim Anjurn Qasuria, learned counsel for the complainant while supporting the impugned order and opposing the grant of bail to the accused/petitioner has contended that it is a case of single accused and the accused/petitioner has been directly charged by the complainant for effectively firing at him; he has remained fugitive from law for a noticeable and unexplained period of about 35/36 days after committing the crime on 31/10/2007, the site-plan and medical report of the victim fully support the prosecution's case backed by a motive and the case falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. In support of the contentions, reliance was placed on the case law reported as Muhammad Rafique alias Titai Vs. The State (PLD 1974 Supreme Court 65), Muhammad Iqbal Vs. The State (NLR 1999 Criminal 104), AU Qadar Vs. The State (1998 P.Cr.L.J. 516). Muhammad Nawaz Vs. The State (NLR 1999 9, Khair Muhammad alias Khairoo Vs. The. State (2003 M LD 1789), Nazir Ahmad Vs. The State and Muhammad Yousaf (NLR 2002 Criminal 364), Fayyaz Ahmad Vs. The State (1989 P.Cr.L.J. 784), Arshad Vs. The State and another (PLJ 1996 SC 1475), Wajahat Ikram and another Vs The State and another (PLJ 1999 SC 1879), Siraj and another Vs. The State and another (2000 P.Cr.L.J. 1220), Ghulam Rabbani Vs. The State and Abdul Baqi (2000 SD 434), Wahid Vs. The State. (NLR 2002 Criminal 6), Abdul Majid alias Fauji and another Vs. The State (NLR 1998 Criminal 592), Faizllah Khan etc. Vs. The State (NLR 1997 Criminal 282), and Zar Gulab and six others Vs. The State etc. (NLR 2004 Criminal 26).
5. Mr. Farooq Akhtar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State appearing on behalf of the State has seriously opposed the grant of bail to the accused/petitioner on almost the same grounds agitated by the learned counsel for the complainant.
6. I have anxiously considered the valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of available record.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the injury is not on vital part of the body and the intention of the accused/petitioner was not to kill the complainant's brother and the offence, after all, if any, committed by the accused/petitioner will come under the provisions of Section 337 PPC, is without substance. The accused/petitioner is directly charged for effectively firing at Aslam, brother of the complainant on his back. The fact that the injury was not on the vital and sensitive part of the body would not, as such, bring the case of the petitioner outside the embargo laid under Section 497 Cr.P.C. as held in the case of Muhammad Rafique Vs. The State reported in 2008 SCM R 678.
8. Admittedly, the accused/petitioner is directly charged by the complainant for effectively firing and injuring him in a broad-day light, and the report is lodged with all reasonable promptitude. It is a single accused case and the victim has sustained a single injury on vital part of his body. The charge is duly supported by a motive of quarrel between children of the parties and eye-witnesses.
The accused/petitioner has remained in abscondence for a sufficiently long and unexplained noticeable period after the occurrence with no plausible explanation. The medical examination of the victim and site-plan prepared in the case also support the prosecution case. Therefore, tentative assessm ent of the materials so far brought on record, prima facie, reasonably links the accused/petitioner with an offence falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 Cr.P.C. which dis-entitles him to the concession of bail.
9. Consequently, in view of the dictum laid down in the cases of Muhammad Rafique alias Titai Vs. The State (PLD 1974 Supreme Court 65) and Wajahat Ikram and another Vs. The State and another (PLJ 1999 Supreme Court 1879), I find no merit in this bail application which is dismissed accordingly.