Having been involved in case registered vide FIR No, 382 dated 31.3.2007 under Sections 324/427/34 PPC registered at Police Station Shabqadar District Charsadda the accused-petitioner applied for his release on bail in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Shabqadar, but his application was dismissed vide order dated 30.5.2007.
2. Thereafter, he approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Charsadda, but this application met the same fate as it was rejected vide order dated 8.6.2007. Now he has moved this Court for his release on bail.
3. Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a single injury found on the left arm near wrist of the victim, which was not on the vital party of the body, but still three persons were charged by the complainant for firing at him.
4. It was also argued that in the site-plan Sher Muhammad has been shown to be present in front of the Motor Car in which the victim was sitting and had he resorted to firing the front wind screen of the Motor Car would have been smashed, whereas the recovery memo shows that the back screen of the Motor Car was damaged and there were found bullet marks on the doors and backside of the Motor Car, which clearly shows that Sher Muhammad had not fired upon the injured.
5. It was also argued that although the victim at the relevant time was at the mercy of the accused as per version of the prosecution and had there been an intention to kill him all the three of them who were armed with deadly weapons could have made indiscriminate firing and there was no chance of survival of the victim. It shows that the prosecution story is very weak and it needs further enquiry as to whether the allegations leveled against the accused-petitioner were correct or not.
6. It was further argued that when the victim sustained injury at the, left arm, as mentioned above, which was not on the vital part of the body, the Courts have been very lenient in granting bail to the accused, more particularly when a wide net is thrown to implicate those who are innocent.
7. It was further argued that no specific role whatsoever was assigned and at this stage it cannot be determined as to with whose firing the sole injury was caused.
8. On the other hand Mr. Ubaidullah Anwar, Addl. A.G. for the State and Mr. Sadullah Khan, Advocate the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail. Their main plea was that 10 empties of 7.62 bore and 6 empties of 30 bore were recovered from the spot and there were found bullet holes on all the sides of the Motor Car, in which the victim was sitting, which shows that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention had resorted to indiscriminating firing.
9. It was further argued that the accused-petitioner remained absconder for 50 days, whereas the other co-accused are still absconders, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of bail.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the available record.
11.On 31.3.2003, at 1945 hours, complainant Muhammad Idrees Khan, in injured condition, accompanied by his younger brother, Shahid Khan, made a report to Qaisar Khan ASI, on duty, in Casulaty, Shabqadar Hospital to the effect that he alongwith his younger brother Shahid Khan and cousin Abdullah, had been proceeding towards his village, by Motor Car, bearing Registration No, RIY 5885. When they arrived near the Hujra of Akram Khan in village Katozai, suddenly; Younis, Sher Muhammad (accused petitioner) and Fawad, duly armed with firearms, appeared and started firing at them with the intention to kill them. Resultantly, the complainant received a fire-arm injury on his left wrist while his 'companions escaped unhurt. All the accused after commission of, the offence, decamped from the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by his companions, beside himself. Motive for the offence was previous blood feud between the parties.
12.In the case in hand three persons have been charged for a single injury at the dorsal aspect of left radius i,e, lower portion of the left arm near the wrist. No specific role has been assigned.
13. Single fire-arm injury was, caused to the complainant and that too on the non-vital part of his body i,e, on dorsal aspect of left radius i,e, lower portion of the left arm near the wrist for which three persons have been charged. Whether it could be the doing of one person or more than one, whose fired turned effective, if at all they were present. It is a matter of common knowledge that in such like cases wide net is thrown on all those who are innocent and had no hand in the commission of the crime and who could help the accused during his incarceration. The cause of the sole injury was not ascertainable, therefore, the question as to whether the petitioner shared common intention and had intended to kill the complainant would require further enquiry.
Moreover no strong reasons existed to withhold the concession of bail.
14. The argument of the learned Addl. A.G. and the learned counsel for the complainant that the accused remained absconder for 50- days, hence not entitled to bail has no force. Perusal of the record shows that proceedings under Section 87 Cr.P.C. were initiated on 10.5.2007, in which one month notice was given to the accused as well as co-accused to be present before the Investigating Officer, the accused-petitioner surrendered/arrested on 22.5.2007, but he was shown arrested on 23.5.2007 and on the same day he was produced before the .learned Judicial Magistrate for physical remand, therefore, there was no abscondence at bail.
For what has been stated above, I am of the View that the accused-petitioner deserves to be released on bail. I, therefore, allow the bail application in hand and direct that the accused- petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 3,00,000/- (three lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate Shabqadar/Charsadda, who, shall ensure that the sureties are credit worthy, reliable, local and men of means.