' Petitioner Ainullah along with Farooq Haider, absconding accused, has been charged for having effectively fired at the house of complainant Nazol. Resultantly the nephew of the complainant aged about 2 years was injured.
2. Since the petitioner, who is directly charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 324/34, P.P.C. Vide: F.I.R. No,85 registered at Police Station, Sheringal, Tehsil and District Dir on 27-12-1997, had absconded, after the occurrence, and had remained fugitive from law for a considerable long time, therefore, he was refused to be released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge/Zila Izafi Qazi Dir, Vide: his order recorded on 14-1-1999.
3. A perusal of the record would show that the order is neither arbitrary nor perverse. Besides, the conclusion drawn in the impugned judgment suffers from no legal infirmity and needs no interference by this Court.
4. It may be pointed out that the mere possibility of recording different view on the basis of the available record would not be sufficient for interference. Interference would, however, be justified only when there is non-appreciation of evidence, collected by the Investigating Officer, which may lead to grave miscarriage of justice or where the order of lower Court is absolutely artificial which might create shocking impression on a person with ordinary prudence or where there is overwhelming evidence, collected by the Investigating Officer, which might lead to the irresistable conclusion, regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence charged with.
5. Even otherwise, on a tentative that reasonable grounds do not exist for believing that the petitioner has not committed the offence charged with. The reasons given by the Additional Sessions Judge for not granting bail to the petitioner are quite convincing and I do not see any justification to interfere with the discretion exercised by him judiciously. If an authority is needed, I am supported by case titled Ijaz Ali Khan v. The State reported as 1968 Supreme Court Monthly Review 1168, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-- "The petitioner who is charged with the offence of murder has been refused bail by the Courts below from which he now seeks leave to Weal.
' On examining the facts appearing in the order of the learned Judge in the High Court we are inclined to the view that the conditions laid down in section 497, Cr.P.C. For refusing bail to die petitioner were amp fulfilled in this case. The petition dismissed."
6. This bail petition is without any substance and is, therefore, dismissed.