' This Criminal Revision Application under section 439, Cr. P. C. Is directed 'against an order under section 497 (5), Cr. P. C. Dated 14th June, 1983 made by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No, VIII* Karachi.
2. Facts in the background, briefly stated, are that the applicant Muhammad Akram is involved in Crime No, 313 of 1982 of P. S. Qaidabad, Karachi, under section 307, P. P. C. Registered on 27th November, 1982, at about 9-45 p. m. On a report lodged by Maqbool Ahmed. Apprehending arrest, the applicant moved an application in the Session Court for bail before arrest. He was granted interim bail but it was not confirmed. He was apprehended. An application for bail after arrest was filed. He was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No, VIII, Karachi, by order dated 17th February, 1983. But his bail was cancelled by the same Additional Sessions Judge, Court No, VIII, Karachi by order dated 14th June, 1983, on an application made under section 497 (5), Cr. P. C. This order has been impugned in this revision application.
3. The allegations contained in the first information report are that there had been altercation between the applicant Muhammad Akram and the complainant Maqbool Ahmed's friends Abdul Rashid at the Cattle Colony a day earlier. On the date of incident, viz. 27th November, 1982, the complainant Maqbool Ahmad and his friend Abdul Rashid were sitting at a bara, when the applicant allegedly went there, armed with a big knife, to assault Abdul Rashid, at about 5.00 p. m.
The complainant Maqbool Ahmed intervened and he was assaulted by the applicant and given two knife injuries on his abdomen. The case was registered at Qaidabad Police Station as indicated above.
4. While granting the bail to the applicant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge took into consideration the supplementary medico-legal report that the injuries sustained by Maqbool Ahmad were simple in nature. In cancelling the bail of the applicant, he took into consideration the site of the injuries sustained by the complainant on his hypochondria-region. S. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has adopted inconsistent views and that there was no legal justification for cancelling the earlier. The learned Advocate for the complainant has contended that it is not the nature of injuries but it is the site where they are caused as to visualise the intention of the assailant in causing them. According to him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly cancelled the bail in the light of 1983 P Cr. L I 959.
The learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing for the State, also has subscribed to that view.
6. While cancelling the bail, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also took in view the allegations that the applicant had abused the concession of grant of bail inasmuch as that he had issued threats to the complainant and the witnesses and such report was made to the Police.
7. The learned Advocate for the complainant also has pressed in aid the same ground to support the order. The learned Additional Advocate-General for the State has not relied upon that circumstance as to support the order. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that such allegations are generally made to obtain cancellation of bail and they are not to be given much importance and he has relied upon PLD 1976 Kar.
1165.
The impugned order was passed on two grounds, viz, site of injuries sustained by the injured Maqbool Ahmad and misconduct of the applicant by issuing threats to the complainant and the witnesses. The injury certificate indicates that the complainant Maqbool Ahmad was caused two injuries by means of a sharp cutting weapon on hypochondia which is a delicate part of the body.
But the medical officer has opined that both the injuries were simple in nature. These two aspects of the case put together minimise the gravity of the offence. Intention of committing an offence is gauged from the circumstances of the individual case. In this case, it is alleged that Abdul Rasheed and not the complainant Maqbool Ahmed was the target of the assault. The complainant was assaulted on his venturing intervention. It is, therefore, the matter for further enquiry as to whether the applicant had the intention of making murderous assault on the complainant. He is, accordingly, entitled to the benefit of bail on that score. As regards, other ground of threats to the witnesses, there does not seem any definite evidence that the applicant had issued threats t the witnesses and thereby abused the concession of bail.
' In view of what has been stated above, the applicant seems entitled to release on bail. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality but it does lack propriety. It is, therefore, set aside and the applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs, 10,000 with one surety, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.