' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, C.J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Shariat Court dated 18-11-2005 whereby while allowing Criminal Revision No,35 of 2005, filed by the complainant/respondent, Wazir Hussain, the bail granted to appellant herein by the Courts below was cancelled.
2. The necessary facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the appellant is involved in a case under sections 324 and 337-D APC registered against him at Police Station Kotli on 13-02-2005, on the report lodged by Wazir Hussain, respondent herein. He moved an application for his release on bail before Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Kotli on 23-2-2005. The trial Court allowed him bail vide its order dated 1-3-2005. The respondent/ complainant took the matter of his bail before the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Kotli for cancellation, however, his application was dismissed vide order dated 20-4-2005. Thereafter he filed a revision petition in the Shariat Court on 18-5- 2005. His application was allowed by a learned Judge in the Shariat Court vide order under challenged dated 18-11-2005. Hence present appeal by accused/respondent for bail.
3. Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that even if the case of prosecution is taken as correct even then only one injury is attributed to appellant and it is not the case of prosecution that he ever tried to repeat attack in order to cause more injuries to complainant. The nature of injury attributed to appellant is simple and therefore does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. According to him, under law the case of appellant falls under section 337-D. The punishment provided for this offence under law is Arsh, therefore, his bail was wrongly cancelled by the learned Judge in the Shariat Court. The appellant remained in judicial lock-up from 13-2-2005 to 1-3-2005. He has been sent to face trial before the Court of competent jurisdiction. According to prosecution version the occurrence took place in a Bazar near Khan Javed Market but no independent person has been cited as witness out of natural witnesses which strengthens the case of appellant that he has been involved in a fabticated case. In support of his contentions the learned counsel relied upon the cases reported as Aftab Ahmed v. The State 1999 SCR 525 and Sarfraz v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 192.
4. On the other hand Sardar Abdul Razik Khan, the learned Additional Advocate-General, supported the judgment under challenge. According to him the occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Malik, Muhammad Qasim and they have supported the prosecution version which further finds support from medico-legal report. He requested that while rejecting this appeal the order under challenge passed by the Shariat Court on 18-11-2005 be maintained.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
According to Medico-legal Report the complainant has received a simple injury allegedly caused with weapon of double edged-sharp cutter. The prosecution version is that this simple injury was caused by the appellant. The bail to an accused person can be refused on the ground that the matter is covered by bar contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. Which stipulates that if in the light of material collected by prosecution during investigation an accused person is connected with the commission of offence punishable with death or transportation for life he can be released on bail only in such matters if his case falls within the exceptions contained in the said provision otherwise concession of bail is to be refused. In the present case even if the case of prosecution is accepted as correct the appellant cannot be awarded punishment of death, transportation of life or punishment for 10 years or above. Presently single injury is attributed to the appellant. Whether independent witnesses have been cited in the case or not is a question which need no be resolved at this stage by us. Keeping in view the seat of injury and the nature of injury whether section 324, APC can be invoked or not is a question which can be resolved by the trial Court after recording evidence of prosecution. Till that time the application of this provision of law needs further inquiry.
Therefore the trial Courts well as the District Criminal Court had rightly allowed concession of bail to accused/appellant. The Shariat Court as well as this Court can interfere only in such cases where it is proved that the discretion was illegally or capriciously exercised without keeping in view the law relating to bail matter.
6. In view of above, by accepting this appeal the impugned order of Shariat Court dated 18-11-2005 is set aside. Consequently the order of bail allowed by the trial Court and maintained by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Kotli stands restored.