' QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J.---Jamil-ur-Rehman, accused/petitioner, is seeking post arrest bail in ease FIR No,377 dated 27-9-2014 under Sections 324/109, P.P.C., Police Station Sara-e-Saleh, District Haripur, which was lodged by Mukhtiar Ahmed, complainant/respondent No,2, in the emergency ward of DHQ Hospital, Haripur, to the effect that due to a dispute with "Pesh-Imam", Qari Mehraban, who was leading prayers in Bilal Mosque for the past 20/22 years, the accused/petitioner not only abused "Pesh-Imam" but also other residents of the village present in the mosque after offering "Isha" prayer and also opened fire on them outside the mosque when they tried to intervene, causing fire-arm injuries to the complainant and witnesses namely. Habib-ur-Rehman, Muhammad Saeed and Rabnawaz; and made good his escape thereafter. In the FIR; Mushtaq, Muhammad Iqbal and Khalid Mehmood were cited as eyewitnesses.
2. All the said injured were examined by the Medical Officer who found firearm injuries on complainant Mukhtiar Ahmed, and eyewitnesses Habibur Rehman and Muhammad Saeed, and injury with blunt means on the eye-witness Rabnawaz. The fire shot also caused fracture on the skull of injured Habib-ur-Rehman. All the aforementioned injured eye-witnesses, as well as other witnesses supported the version of the complainant recorded in the FIR. The I.O. Secured blood from the spot confirming scene of occurrence outside the mosque as against version of the accused/petitioner in his confessional statement before the Judicial Magistrate, Haripur, wherein he indicated the place of occurrence outside his house. The weapon of offence i.e, rifle double barrel .12 bore as handed over to the I.
0. By the accused/petitioner himself. After collection of evidence, mentioned above, the local police has submitted challan against the accused/petitioner for facing trial in the Court.
3. Syed Shah Faisal, Advocate, learned counsel for accused/ petitioner, argued that no crime empty was recovered from the spot, neither injuries on the complainant and other witnesses were so serious so as to attract the application of section 324, P.P.C. The learned counsel also pointed out that injury on one of the eye-witnesses was caused by blunt means and that medical reports did not support the version of the prosecution. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for accused/petitioner placed reliance on judgments in cases report as Khan Zada v. The State and another (2012 PCr.LJ 1883) (Peshawar), Isfandyar v. The State through Additional Advocate General and another (2012 YLR 2853) (Peshawar), Rehan v. The State (2009 SCM R 181), Umar Hayat v. The State and others (2008 SCM R 1621), Faisal Nawaz v. The State and another (2010 PCr.LJ 1644)
(Lahore), Mir Muhammad alias Miroo v. The State (2008 YLR 1851) (Karachi), and Shahzeb Khan v.
The State and another (2013 PCr.LJ 907) (Peshawar).
4. Complainant/respondent No,2 expressed his inability to engage counsel and stated that he would be relying on the arguments of learned DAG. The learned DAG contended that on a petty dispute the accused/petitioner had caused firearm injuries to several persons and that sufficient evidence like medical reports, statements of injured eyewitnesses, recovery of blood from the spot, and above all, confessional statement of accused/petitioner connected the accused/petitioner with the commission of offence.
5. The accused/petitioner is directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR by the injured complainant in the emergency ward of DHQ Hospital, Haripur, for attempting at his life and lives of worshipers who were trying to prevail upon him to abandon hostile attitude towards "Pesh-Imam" of the Mosque. The allegation of attempting at the lives of the complainant and other eye-witnesses find support from the medical report, recovery of blood from the spot, recovery of weapon of offence, statements of injured as well as other eye-witnesses and also confessional statement of the accused/petitioner.
6. The alleged reckless act of opening unprovoked indiscriminate firing on other worshipers outside the mosque only because of his declared aversion against "Pesh-Imam" would amply demonstrate a desperate attitude on the part of accused/petitioner having delusion of self righteousness. The accused/petitioner vainly tried to paint a different B picture in his confessional statement by saying that it was he who was attacked by the supporters of "Pesh-Imam" outside his house, but recovery of blood from outside the mosque i.e, the scene of occurrence tells a story, to the contrary.
7. In any case, with such an unruly disposition, with no remorse repentance even afterwards, as appearing from his confessional statement, the accused/petitioner cannot be held entitled to the concession of bail; especially when challan has been submitted in the Court and the trial Court has taken cognizance in the case, which is, indeed, not a proper stage to comment on merits of the case, lest that may prejudice the case of either of the parties. Resultantly, the bail petition is dismissed.