' SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.---Through the captioned criminal bail application, applicant Muhammad Ibrahim, has agitated the order dated 03,06.2015, passed by the Court of learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Naushehro Feroze, whereby his earlier bail application was declined in Crime No, 256 of 2013, Police Station Naushehro Feroze, for the offence punishable under sections 452, 324, 337-H(2), 147, 148 and 149 P.P.C.
2. Relevant facts as narrated in the FIR are that on the fateful day, the applicant along with his companion trespassed into the house of the complainant and he caused bullet injuries to Mst.
Paree, hence the instant FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant due to ulterior motive as parties are already disputed with each other; that co-accused Ghulam Asghar to whom the same allegations were attributed, was let-off by the police during the investigation but complainant had not challenged the said approval of summary by the Judicial Magistrate; that the bullet injury was caused.On non-vital part of the body of the injured, which is punishable for seven years and does not fall within the ambit of Prohibitory Clause of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C; that co-accused Sikandar, Ghulam Hyder, Asghar, Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Chuttal have already been granted bail by the High Court vide order dated 20.10.2014; that prosecution witnesses are interested and close relatives of the complainant, hence question of tampering with the evidence does not arise. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case laws reported in 2010 YLR 2889, 2001 PCr.LJ 125, 2012 YLR 1053, 2010 YLR 737, 2011 YLR 2657, 2001 PCr.LJ 1345, 1994 SCM R 2051, 2011 SCM R 1392, 2008 SCM R 1621.
4. While controverting to the submissions made by the learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for complainant vehemently contended that all the case laws cited by learned counsel for applicant are pertaining to the causing of injuries and none of the case law is pertaining to section 452, P.P.C. To commit trespass into the house, as such case laws cited by learned counsel for applicant are quite distinguishable. He further contended that from the averments of the FIR, it is crystal clear that accused with pre-planning to commit the alleged offence, trespassed into the house of the complainant as such provisions of section 324 P.P.C., are fully attracted. He . Has relied upon the cases reported in 2004 PCr.LJ 692, 2004 SCM R 772 and 2002 SCM R 442.
5. Learned APG supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for complainant and contended that in case of any conflict in the injuries mentioned in the FIR and medical certificate, it is for the Court to record the evidence of witnesses and examine the material at trial, as deeper appreciation of material at bail stage is not permissible.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, which emanate that alleged incident was occurred inside of the house of complainant at 0700 hours, whereby the present applicant has been attributed a specific role of causing bullet injuries to Mst. Paree, who is also present in the Court and is unable to stand and walk without the help of others.
7. In the case of Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (2004 SCM R 772), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with plea of under sections 337-F, 337-H, 337-A, 452, P.P.C. Has observed as follows:-- ' "Accused was armed with a fire arm weapon and he caused injury to the victim and kept on firing. Neither the evidence at such stage could be appreciated, nor it could be determined as to who was the aggressor. Accused was at liberty to move afresh for grant of bail after some evidence was recorded in the case. Leave to appeal was refused to accused accordingly."
8. It is significant to mention that present applicant committed trespass into the house of complainant, with preparation and armed with pistol, and caused fire arm injury to the victim lady making her permanently disable. Moreover, applicant disappeared from the scene after commission of the alleged offence and remained fugitive from the law for a considerable time and surrendered himself before the Court when his brother was granted pre-arrest bail by the High Court of Sindh on the ground that no overt act was attributed to him. Indeed, the incident occurred inside the house of complainant so naturally his family member would be the witnesses of the incident as such their testimony could not be discarded mere on the ground of their relationship with the complainant who otherwise seems to be trustworthy. It is well settled that accused cannot claim concession of bail as a matter of right even the alleged offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Siddique v.
Imtiaz Begum and 2 others (2002 SCM R 445).
9. As the sequel of the fact and circumstances referred supra, applicant has failed to establish the case of further inquiry as envisaged in section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Consequently, the instant bail application stands dismissed. However, the learned trial court is directed to record :the statement of the complainant, injured and doctor within two months on the receipt of instant order and then the applicant would be at liberty to repeat his bail application a fresh.
10. The observations made supra are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court shall decide the case strictly on merits. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.