RAJA SAJJAD AHMAD KHAN, J.---Through this revision petition, petitioner-complainant, seeks cancellation of bail after arrest which was allowed to accused respondent No.1, by learned Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Hajira vide impugned order dated 15.04.2017.
2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that complainant lodged a written report against non-petitioner with Police Station, Hajira wherein it is averred that he is resident of Dewi Gali Mancjari. On 21.02.2017 at about 8.30 p.m_ the complainant was going towards the house of his maternal uncle namely 'Mohammad Tariq son of Akbar by crossing Dewi Gali ground when Kashif Irshad and Mohammad Shazad were standing there with common object. Kashif called him when the complainant went towards him, the accused Kashif without doing any talk fired three shots with pistol with intention to kill him. The bullets hit his at left hip of his leg, due to which he became seriously injured and fell down at the spot. On hue and cry of complainant from nearby Qadeer son of Noor Mohammad and other people rushed towards the place and witnessed the occurrence.
The accused ran away from the spot. There was no motive behind the occurrence.
3. On this report, a case vide FIR bearing No. 19/201 in offences under sections 324,337-A to Z,34, A.P.0 and 15A-2 of the Arms Act, was registered against the accused-respondent and co-accused at Police Station, Hajira. After commission of the occurrence the accused was absconded but later on he was arrested on 04.03.2017. He applied for bail after arrest, before Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Hajira on 13.03.2017, which was refused by the said Court vide 'order dated 24.03.2017 while his second bail application was also dismissed by Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Hajira on 29.03.2017. Again he applied for bail before Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Hajira, on 03.04.2017 which also met the same fate vide order dated 10.04.2017. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order, accused respondent again moved an application before Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Hajira on 10.04.2017 which was allowed and he was granted bail vide impugned order dated 15.04.2017, hence, this revision petition.
4. Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/complainant and Javed Naz, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State/respondent No.2, submitted that accused-respondent has been nominated in the promptly lodged FIR his identification was not in doubt, his presence at the place of occurrence at relevant time was successfully established by the prosecution which was also supported from statements of witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. and recovery of weapon of offence pistol .30-bore and medico-legal report pertaining to the victim. He further argued that the accused respondent committed non-bailable offences, as he caused injuries at the vital part of the body to the complainant without any reason, which offences covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. but the trial court did not considered these facts and granted bail to the accused respondent by settled principle of law governing bail matters, therefore, by accepting the revision petition the same may be cancelled. In support of arguments, the learned counsel placed reliance on 2008 SCR 523.
5. Conversely, Raja Hafeez the learned counsel for accused respondent No.1, fully defended the impugned order on all counts and submitted that respondent has been falsely implicated by the complainant. He further argued that occurrence was not witnessed by any body, offence under section 324, A.P.C. is not applicable in present case as the victim received only single injury, thus prima facie case against the accused respondent was not covered by Prohibitory Clause of section 497,Cr.P.C. crime empty was not recovered at the spot, so recovery of weapon of offence was doubtful, hence no offence has been committed by him and grant of bail after arrest is based on cogent and sound reasons, which is liable to be sustained. Finally he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. In support of the contention, the learned counsel referred to 2016 SCR 1264.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for parties as well as the learned State Counsel and cursorily gone through the record.
7. A perusal of record would show that Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction had rejected the bail of accused respondent on 29.03.2017 by observing that accused respondent injured the complainant by firing with .30-bore pistol and allegation is supported by witnesses who got recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. It also observed that medical report supports the allegation. While on 15.04.2017 the accused respondent was allowed bail by the same court shortly after dismissal of his bail application without change of circumstances in which he was refused bail earlier. The Court below allowed bail on the ground that challan has been presented before the trial Court and accused respondent was previously non-convict person and allegation against him in offence under section 324, A.P.C. also requires further probe. It is further held by the learned Court below that injury attributed against the accused respondent in section 337- F(iv),A.P.C. does not fall within the Prohibitory Clause. The medical report given by medical officer is reproduced as under:-- "Entrance wound 2x2cm at the lateral aspect of (Rt) thigh 8cm above the knee joint."
"According to the X-rays of series 5124, 5633, 6076, 7081, 5402, compound fracture of right middle shaft of femur seen."
8. The learned trial court further observed that matter of section 324, A.P.C. is one that of further inquiry but the learned Court below has not observed that there are no reasonable ground to believe that accused has committed non-bailable offence, which reveals further inquiry. Mere need of further inquiry is no ground for grant of bail. The ground for further inquiry can only be considered when the Court taking cognizance of matter which comes to conclusion that reasonable ground do exist that accused has not committed non-bailable offence. Without such finding made by the Court, the accused would not be released on bail on the ground of further inquiry. It is well settled that there is no bar for the Courts to entertain an application under section 497, Cr.P.C. and grant bail town accused on any ground at any stage of the case but the exercise of such power must not be uncontrolled and must be used in accordance with the settled principles for grant and refusal of bail and the courts hit exercising such power must not overlook the judicious considerations. The essential pre-requisite for grant of bail by virtue of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. is that the Court must be satisfied on the basis of opinion expressed by the Police or the material placed before it that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused was not guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of ten years, whereas in the present case, the respondent has been allowed bail without such finding. In absence of forming of such an opinion on the basis of which the learned Additional District Criminal court was not supposed to make an observation which would effect the prosecution case. Undoubtedly, the liberty of a person is very valuable and guaranteed, under the constitution which is guarded by the Courts but it being always subject to law is to be necessarily protected in the light of law under which his liberty has been curtailed. The accused respondent in the present case while facing charge of attempt to murder was allowed post arrest bail shortly after refusal of his post arrest bail without change of the circumstances under which he was refused bail after arrest a couple of days earlier.
9. In the instant case, from perusal of record reveals that allegation against the accused- respondent is that he fired three shots with .30-bore pistol, which hit right leg of the victim; the allegation was supported by medico-legal report pertaining to the victim and statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., therefore a specific role of firing shots by 30-bore pistol has been ascribed to the accused-respondent, which prima-facie connects him with the commission of offence and in such like cases where the act of accused prima-facie depicts intention of launching a murderous attack upon the complainant, the bail cannot be granted. My aforesaid view finds support from a case reported as Saghir Ahmad v. Zulfiqar Ahmad and another 2005 PCr.LJ 1284 wherein the revision petition was accepted, concession of bail was recalled and it was observed:-- "It is also on the record that the accused fired four shots on the person of the victim but one shot only hit him directly, therefore, the intention of the accused of launching a murderous assault appears from his act and the case prima-facie falls under prohibitory clause in terms of section 497, Cr.P.C."
It was further observed that:- "After examining the record and material collected by the Investigating Agency, the accused/respondent is prima-facie connected with the commission of murderous assault and in such like cases the bail cannot be granted in haste. The impugned order lacks convincing reasons and without being guided by principles governing grant of bail, therefore, it is not sustainable."
10. In light of above dictums, I am of the view that act of accused-respondent itself prima-facie depicts his intention of launching murderous assault upon the complainant.
11. From tentative assessm ent of the record, this Court is of prima facie view that the accused respondent is connected with the alleged commission of offence who is not entitled to the concession of bail after arrest and there is no cogent material to show that the complainant has mala fide intention to implicate the respondent with alleged offence. Similarly, previous non- conviction and mere filing or non-filing of the challan per se is not to be considered a fresh ground for considering the plea of accused to be released on bail. Even the fact that the case against the accused did not fall in the ambit of Prohibitory Clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. did not make out a case for grant of bail, resultantly the revision petition is accepted and bail granted to accused respondent No.1 vide order dated 15.04.2017 by learned Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Hajira is hereby recalled.
Before parting with the order, it may be observed that any observation in this order, being purely tentative in nature, shall in no way prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial Court where the case be decided strictly on its own merits.