' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---By the impugned order the learned Judge in Chambers set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge by which bail had been allowed to the petitioner.
2. According to the allegations in the FIR, Liaqat Ali petitioner armed with pistol, Riasat All and Rafaqat All armed with Sarya are alleged to have abused Nadim Sadiq, the son of the complainant stating that they had come to avenge the last night's incident in which they had been insulted by Nadim Sadiq. There was exchange of abuses between them and Riasat All attacked with Sarya which injured Nadim Sadiq. Hearing the noise Nasir Khan came and tried to intervene upon which Rafaqat and Riasat injured him. When Nadim Sadiq tried to catch hold of Liaqat Ali, he fired at him which injured Nadim Sadiq. The learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail application holding that the occurrence had taken place all of a sudden without any background of previous enmity and that offence, if any, may fall under section 308, P.P.C. Requiring proper consideration at the relevant time. Reliance was also placed on Gill Arab v. Adam Khan (1980 SCM R 369). However, the learned Judge in Chambers took a contrary view distinguishing the aforestated judgment of the Supreme Court and observed as follows:-- "In the case in hand, at the present stage, no element of suddenness can be inferred. The complainant has mentioned in the F.I.R. The incident, which had taken place on the previous night between the victim and the respondent. The respondent had come to avenge the insult of that incident along with his two brothers. They all had launched attack. His two brothers had inflicted injuries to Nadim Sadiq in the first instance. They had also caused injuries to a witness who had tried to rescue Nadim Sadiq. It was thereafter that Nadim Sadiq was fired at by the respondent and caused injuries on the vital parts of the body. Such circumstances, for the present, do not leave scope to observe/hold that it might have been a sudden occurrence. The facts of the case relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and the observation made therein are, therefore, different from the case in hand."
3. The observations of the learned Judge of the High Court quoted above are based on sound legal principle and a proper distinction of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner (Gul Arab's case) has been made. We do not find any infirmity in the reasoning and exercise of discretion by the learned Judge. The petition is dismissed.