' The brief facts of the case are that one Naurose Akhtar lodged report at Police Station, Rawat, whereupon case F.I.R. No,171, dated 18-8-1994 was registered under section 324/34, P.P.C. Against Ikhlaq, Ziafat Hussain and Jamil accused. According to the contents of the F.I.R. Ikhlaq accused was armed with pistol. The other two accused were empty-handed. They attacked at the complainant on 18-8-1994 at 6-45 p.m. The allegation against the petitioner Ikhlaq is that he fired at the complainant and caused him three injuries. Injury No,1 is on the lateral (outer) aspect of left hip joint. Injury No,2 is entry wound with blackening on the left thigh, while injury No,3 is exit wound of the fire shot. According to the facts stated in the F.I.R. Jamil and Ziafat facilitated Ikhlaq accused by catching hold of the arms of the injured and in that course the present petitioner used his pistol and fired at the back side of the complainant which hit him on his left thigh. He has also stated that the accused fired second shot but it did not hit him.
2. Ziafat and Jamil have been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 23-1-1994.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail for Ikhlaq Ahmad accused/petitioner on the grounds that according to the medico-legal report, there are two entry wounds on the person of victim; the medico-legal report contradicts the ocular evidence; the report was lodged at 9-15 p.m., whereas the occurrence took place at about 6-45 p.m.; the complainant went to the police station after covering about four miles distance in injured condition; lastly keeping in view the intervening period and distance, it cannot be accepted that the complainant received fire-arm injuries in the manner he narrated before the police, especially when the complainant is quite specific in saying that the second fire was ineffective. He, therefore, maintains that it is a ease of further inquiry for the purpose of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant stated that L. The F.I.R. It is mentioned that Ikhlaq petitioner fired twice. Missing of second fire as mentioned in the F.I.R. Has fully been explained in the supple Mary statement made on the same day before the Investigating Officer, wherein it has been stated that because of the fire injury the injured portion of his body became insensitive, as such he was unaware of the hitting. Physical condition coupled with the medico- legal report leave no scope to say, at this stair that the petitioner/accused is not connected with the alleged crime. He vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the offence falls under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. There is sufficient evidence with the prosecution to prove it.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The allegation against the petitioner/accused is that he fired with his pistol at the complainant. As far as the second fire is concerned, whether it hit or missed, the benefit of it cannot be given to the petitioner/accused, at this stage. Injuries Nos.1 and 2 cannot be called as self-suffered. The explanation put forward through supplementary statement favours the prosecution version. The petitioner repeated firing effectively.
6. For the foregoing reasons, 1 see no substance in the bail petition, hence dismissed.