SHAH JEHAN KHAN YOUSAFZAI, J.---Khiyal Muhammad, accused-petitioner, who is under arrest in case F.I.R. No.54 dated 2-2-2011 under section. 324, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Yaqoob Khan Shaheed, Takht-e-Nasrati District Karak, was refused bail by the lower Courts. Now he has come to this Court for his release on bail.
2. Case of the prosecution is that Shaheedullah lodged the report in emergency room in injured condition that he along with his brothers Fasihullah and Farmanullah were present at the venue of occurrence, meanwhile, Khiyal Muhammad (the petitioner) arrived there duly armed with deadly weapon and opened fire at them as a result of which he was hit on the right thigh while his brothers luckily escaped unhurt. The motive is the outcome of blood feud enmity between the parties.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who. Contended that petitioner himself surrendered and joined the investigation. The injury sustained by the complainant is not on the vital part and application of section 324, P.P.C. Requires further probe. Further contends that though five empties were recovered from the spot but in the recovery memo. Calibre of empties have not been mentioned. Further contends that no blood was found on the place where the complainant sustained injuries and the memo. Regarding garments of the victim, there is different colour of trousers of the complainant in the two different memos. Which makes the case one of further enquiry. Placed reliance on 1994 PLR 655, 1994 PCr.LJ 2285, 1999 PCr.LJ 230 and 1999 PCr.LJ 140.
4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the complainant with due support of the State counsel refuted the contentions and submitted that the offence falls under the restrictive part of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. Without going into deep merits of the prosecution case and on making a tentative assessment of record, I found that the occurrence took place in broad daylight and petitioner is the sole accused charged by the injured complainant and admittedly there is blood feud enmity between A the parties. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon 1994 PLR 655 but the facts of the inseam case are distinguishable as in the cited judgment the only fire-shot was made by the accused and did not repeat the same but in the instant case at least five empties of 7.62 bore were recovered from the spot meaning thereby that attempt at the life of injured complainant and his two brothers, who escaped unhurt, were repeatedly attempt at least five times. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon 1994 PCr.LJ 2285 wherein the accused was extended the concession of bail on the ground that the offence is punishable with Daman and imprisonment would be awarded as Ta'zir if so required. The cited judgment is distinguishable on the ground that the injuries sustained by the victim in the cited judgment were not caused through fire-arm. Use of tire-arm itself indicates the intention of the accused to done away the life of victim.
6. The Investigating Officer has inadvertently not mentioned the calibre of empties in the recovery memo but the same day while sending those empties to F.S.L. The same Investigating Officer has mentioned that five empties were of 7.62 bore, therefore, the inadvertence omission of calibre is of no use for the petitioner. Likewise, the two recovery memos. Regarding two different colour of trousers of the victim will also amount to deep appreciation of prosecution case which is not desirable at bail stage. Prima facie, the petitioner is reasonably connected with the commission of offence falling within the restrictive part of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6.(sic.) Resultantly, this bail petition is dismissed. Office is directed to send the record to the trial Court forthwith as the trial has already been commenced.