1. ' GHULAM DASTGIR A. SHAHANI, J.- Bail application is submitted on behalf of applicant/accused, namely, Zahid Hussain Shah, in a crime No,40/2008 Police Station Dokri, for offence under section 324, P.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 26-4-2008, complainant Mst. Khursheed Bibi lodged a report at Police Station, Dokri stating therein that, her son, namely, Imdad Ali Shah used to sell Rice. About 4/5 months back, accused Zahid Hussain Shah, asked Imdad Ali Shah for the sale of his house which was refused, as such being annoyed issued threats of dire consequences. On 25- 4-2008 at about 1145 hours when complainant was available in her house heard cries of her son Imdad Ali Shah. She came out of her house and found that accused Zahid Hussain Shah was making pistol shots at her son Imdad Ali Shah. Meanwhile Munawar Ali Brohi and other people came running and accused, seeing them coming ran away. Complainant saw that her son had received fire-arm injury on the calf of left leg, through and through, the blood was oozing and injured was unconscious. She brought her son to a Police Station, wherefrom she got a letter for treatment and certificate for C.M.C. Hospital, Larkana, thereafter report was registered.
2. ' After usual investigation applicant/ accused was arrested on the next day of recording of F.I.R. Viz. 27-4-2008 and challan was submitted before the competent Court of law.
3. ' Bail application was submitted before learned trial Court, but same was declined by the learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, vide order, dated 3-6-2008, hence present application.
4. ' Mr. Ahsan Ahmed Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant, states that applicant/accused is being implicated falsely and pistol has been foisted upon him due to enmity and injuries on the person are self-suffered, civil suit is pending and affidavits Submitted before the trial Court have not been considered or discussed and further that applicant/accused is well- educated and student of B.A. And his future will be spoiled, if he further remained in Jail. He further Submits that injuries have been declared as "Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Hashimah", which falls under section 337-F (v), P.P.C, which is punishable for five years, hence the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And lastly states that on 25-4-2008 at 2-00 a.m. Of the night, injured Imdad Ali Shah had committed the murder of one Makhan Shah, uncle of the applicant by causing him gunshot injuries and such F.I.R. Was lodged by Safdar Ali Shah, cousin of the applicant, at Police Station Sobhodero as Crime No,56 of 2008, and in that case, present injured is shown as absconder Reliance is placed by him on a case of Shammas-ud-Din v. The State PLD 1996 Kar. 382, Jan Muhammad v. Noor Jamal (1998 SCM R 500), Allah Rakha v. The State (1993 SCM R 1994), Abdul Sattar v The State (2001, PCr.LJ 1127), Ghulam Mustafa v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 2d53) Muhammad Muzaffar v. The State (l'S^5 PCr.LJ 1345), Muhammad Pervaiz Akhtar. v. The State (1986 PCr.LJ 140)'and Shmasuddin v. The State PLD 1996 Kar, 382 respectively.
5. ' On the other hand Mr. Ali-Akbar Kalhoro, learned counsel for the complainant states that F.I.R. Was recorded on 26-4-2008 and applicant/accused was arrested on 27-4-20084-pistol also recovered from him on same day and injuries cannot said to be a, self-suffered being through and through.
6. Accused has repeated the fire, therefore, presumption can be taken that applicant/accused tried his best to kill injured Imdad Ali Shah as such, he is not entitled for concession of bail. Reliance is placed by him on a case of Waqas Ahmad v. The State (2005 SCM R 1496), Ejaz Ahmed v. The State (2008 M LD 566) Muhammad Rafique v. The State (2008 SCM R 678) and Zahoor Illahi v. Shahzad Ahmad (2007 PCr.LJ 1056), Naseer Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 347) respectively.
7. ' Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, learned State counsel, adopted same arguments as advanced by Mr. Ali Akbar Kalhoro, learned counsel for the complainant. He further added that the role of direct firing has been alleged against the applicant/accused and repeated the F.I.R. And nature of the injuries caused to Imdad Ali Shah cannot said to be a self-suffered.
8. ' Heard learned counsel for the applicant, as well as to the learned counsel for the complainant, so also learned State counsel, respectively and with their assistance perused the material available on record.
9. ' On perusal of record it appears that F.I.R. Was recorded on 26-4-2008 and applicant/accused was arrested on next day and pistol was also recovered from him and the role of direct firing has been attributed against the applicant/accused, even fire has been repeated by him. Injuries sustained by the injured, namely, Imdad Ali Shah are through and through and injuries have also been opined to have been caused by a firearm and further that Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Hashimah falls under section 337-F (v), P.P.C. Is punishable for five years, offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Only is not a ground for bail. So far submission of affidavits before trial Court is concerned, that has been discharged by the Honourable Supreme Court at bail stage and amounts to be a tampering of evidence. So far pending of civil suit is concerned, that is to be decided separately and not with the criminal proceedings and grounds raised by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that applicant has been falsely involved and pistol has been foisted upon him due to enmity and injuries sustained by Imdad Ali Shah to be a self suffered, cannot be decided at this stage, being a complicated question and requires determination at trial.
10. So far the ground that the applicant/accused is a young and student of B.A. And his character and future will be ruined if he will further remain in jail. It is observed that a student of B.A. Cannot be granted a license nor he may be allowed to involve himself in such a crime, but as well educated, he be so conscious and to avoid from such type of litigation and there is no reason at this stage that a version of the complainant may not be believed, though tentative assessment is to be made and no deeper appreciation is required at bail stage. So far the law referred by the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, mostly having different facts and not similar and identical to the case in hand. Learned counsel for the applicant/ accused has relied upon a case reported in PLD 1996 Kar 382, that was a night time incident and identification was on torch light and there was a conflict between a medical and ocular evidence. So far as a case reported in 2001 PCr.LJ 1127 is concerned, in that matter accused not repeated the iron rod blow, whereas in the present matter pistol fire has been repeated.
11. ' So far case 2000 PCr.LJ 2053 is concerned, complainant attributed sharp-edged weapon injuries to the accused persons, but no such injury was reflected in postmortem report of the deceased, as such accused were granted a concession of bail, and case of co-accused was found one of the further enquiry. So far case reported PLD 1996 Kar. 382, the statements recorded under section 161, Gr.P.C. Were contradicted by plea of alibi and medical evidence. Whereas in the case 1986 PCr.LJ 1740 a bail was granted to the applicant/accused on the ground that applicant/accused was found aged about 16/17 years and student of 1st year, and looking to his age, concession of bail was allowed. In the last case relied by the learned counsel reported in 1995, PCr.LJ 1345 is concerned, concession of bail was allowed, as injury attributed to accused was Ghayr Jaifah entitling maximum punishment for five years which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Prosecution raised no objection for grant of bail and the facts were that accused with co- accused were firing at Bundu video point, complainant restrained them from firing, on which parties grappled with each other and accused fired at complainant.
12. ' So far the law referred by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is concerned, mostly having same facts. A case reported in 2008 M LD 566, bail was refused on the ground that the applicant/accused was named in the F.I.R. With a role of firing, crime weapon was recovered and doctor opined that injuries sustained by the injured were the result of firearms, accused was found involved during investigation and challan was submitted, whereas a case reported in 2005 SCM R 1496, bail was declined by the High Court, as specific role with motive was attributed against the applicant/accused, and Honourable Supreme Court did not call for any interference. Whereas a case reported in 2008 SCM R 678 role of direct firing was alleged and injuries were sustained by the complainant even on lower part of the body bail was declined. So far last case relied by the learned counsel for the complainant i.e, 2007 PCr.LJ 1056 is so relevant, as defence plea was that fire has not been repeated, even then bail was refused by observing that non-repeating of fire at the most could be terned that accused had no intention to brutally cause the murder and accused could not be said to have no intention to kill, as he was fully aware the injury from the fire-arm weapon could cause the death of injured. In view of the aforesaid facts, law and looking to the intention of the accused, prima facie, participation in a particular crime at this stage cannot be ruled out. Even otherwise tentative assessment is to be made and no deeper appreciation is required at bail stage and the applicant/accused is not entitled for concession of bail/therefore, by my short order delivered in Court on 22-7-2008 I had dismissed the bail application. Foregoing are the reasons for my short order.