JUDGMENT RANA MUHAMMAD ARSHAD, J.- Petitioner has filed this petition under section 497/498 Cr.
P.C. Seeking his post arrest bail in case FIR No. 54 dated 12.3.1994, under sections 324,337-D/148,149 PPC, registered with Police Station City Sargodha, at the instance of Muhammad Mukhtar, the real brother of the injured, for an occurrence which took place on the same day at about 8:30 a.m.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 123.1994 at about 8.30 a.m. Moved Baz petitioner herein, Imran his brother and three unknown persons armed with pistols, had launched murderous attack on Azhar Hussain in Kutchery Bazar Sargodha. The petitioner fired a shot with his pistol aiming at Azhar Hussain injured which hit him on the back side of his right shoulder who after sustaining the injuries fell on the ground. Imran co-accused filed a shot aiming at Safdar another companion of the injured which hit Umer Din, a passer-by instead of him. Taking the benefit of the rush in the bazar, the accused managed to run away from the place of occurrence while firing in the air.
3. The post-arrest bail petition was moved in the trial court and the same was declined vide order dated 23.6.1994 and thereafter the post-arrest petition was again declined vide order dated 28.11.1994 passed by Sessions Judge Sargodha. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the . Petitioner has falsely been involved in the case; that during the scuffle he acted in self-defence and that he was arrested on 17.3.1994 and is in jail since then.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record with their assistance and perused the relevant law.
7. The perusal of the medical certificate indicates that the shot fired by the petitioner had hit on the back side of the shoulder of the injured which means that the shot was fired from the back side of Azhat Hussain. This excludes the possibility of firing in self-defence as being aggressed. Had they come to attack the petitioner and others the face of the injured would have been towards the petitioner. Prima facie the case of self-defence is not made out. The injury No.2 resulted in. (sic) The investigation was conducted by the local police, who also held him responsible for both the fires and came to the conclusion that this firing was not made in self-defence. The investigation was got transferred by the complainant and thereafter by the accused party. The investigation was lastly conducted by DSP Sargodha. The challan has already been submitted in the court which has taken cognizance of the case.
8. This is a cruel act of hardened criminal who opened fire in the bazar desperately as a result of which a passerby was also hit. A direction has already been given to the learned trial court by the learned Sessions Judge Sargodha to conclude the trial till 23rd December, 1994. If the same has not been concluded as yet, it shall now be concluded at the earliest possible time positively.
9. Without commenting upon the merits of the case so that it may not prejudice the case of either party, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail at this stage. The $ame is, therefore, dismissed.
10. Before parting with the order, I am to make it clear that the observation given by me in para. 7 of the order is for the purpose of decision of bail petition only and the same shall not be binding on the trial court.