This is a petition for cancellation of bail allowed to Mubashir Ahmed, respondent No. 1 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, by his order dated 2nd January, 1982 in a case registered against the said accused under section 307, P. P. C. With Police Station Sadar, Gujrat, vide F. I. R. No. 416 dated 24th October, 1981.
2. The facts necessary for the purposes of the petition, briefly stated, are that Mubashir Ahmad respondent No. 1 was accused of inflicting three injuries with chhuri on the person of one Basharat, nephew of the complai--nant Zafarullah in broad day light, at about 8 a. m. On 24th October, 1981 in the area of Police Station Sadar, Gujrat. Two of the injuries were caused on the left side of the back of the injured and when the victim tried to snatch the chhuri from accused respondent No. 1 his left hand thumb was also injured. The occurrence was witnessed apart from the complainant by his son Tariq Ahmad and one Muhammad Sharif son of Muhammad Hussain, prosecution witnesses. The accused threatened the witnesses with dire consequences and fled away from the spot. The. Injured was admitted to hospital.
According to the Medico-Legal Report, injury No. 2 was declared grievous by the Doctor. The injured remained in the Hospital for about twenty days.
3. Respondent No. 1, Mubasbir Ahmad applied for bail before arrest to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, which was rejected by him by his order dated 10th November, 1981. He was arrested on 15th November, 1981 and after his arrest he led to the recovery of the chhuri from his house which measured 131 inches in length and its blade was 9J long. A case under the Arms Ordinance was also therefore registered against him since the accused did not possess any licence therefor.
Res--pondent No. 1 allegedly applied for bail to the learned trial Magistrate which was refused on 16th December, 1981 whereupon he made an apple--cation for bail after arrest before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who accepted the application and granted him bail by his order dated 2nd January, 1982.
Hence the present application by the complainant for cancellation of bail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gjurat allowing bail to the petitio--ner just after 11 month of the date of refusal to grant him bail without any fresh ground been afforded is apparently illegal.
The learned counsel next contended that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge granting bail to respondent No. 1 is otherwise also not sustainable as it has been erroneously held that no injury was inflicted on the victim Basharat which was grievous within the meaning of section 320, P. P. C. He submitted that the injury has been specifically termed 'grievous' by the Doctor in his report and the size of the injury as also the size of chhuri used for inflicting the same clearly establishes the intention of respondent No. 1 to kill the victim.
The learned counsel also argued that respondent No. 1 is named in the F. I. R. And the occurrence took place in broad daylight.
In reply, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 only submitted that the learned Addition Sessions Judge exercised the discretion correctly and that the accused-respondent was bailed out after a long span of 1 month and 22 days. The learned counsel appearing for the State supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also submitted that the injury caused to the victim, especially the grievous one, was on the vital part of the body i.e. On the left back side and was so serious that victim had to remain in the Hospital for a large number of days.
5. Having given consideration to the controversy involved I find force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The grant of bail by the learned Additional Ses--sions Judge, Gujrat by his subsequent order was in utter disregard of the order earlier passed by him whereby he refused bail to the accused-A respondent. It was correctly pointed out that no fresh ground had accrued which could entitle the petitioner to bail after a short span of one month and 22 days. On the contrary in the meanwhile the Doctor's report had come in the field which categorically declared injury No. 2 as grievous. The accused-respondent having been specifically named in the F. I. R. And the occurrence having taken place in broad daylight witnessed by three persons and a chhuri of prohibited size having been used for inflicting injuries on the victim did prima facie connect the accused respondent with the commission of the crime which entails a sentence of 10 years' R. I. That being so, the case fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C., and as already observed above, there being no extenuating circumstance in favour of the accused respondent the respondent was obviously not entitled to the concession of bail and the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not in accord with settled principles on the subject.
In view of the foregoing discussion accepting this petition I cancel the bail allowed to the accused- respondent Mubashir Ahmad by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat. The accused- respondent is not present today in the Court. Action may be taken against him in accordance with law in pursuance of his order.