' The petitioner, Jamaluddin son of Nasruddin, caste Rajput, resident of Mohallah Dewan Sahib, S.I.
Khan, involved in case F.I.R. No,166, dated 21-6-1998 registered at Police Station City D.I. Khan, under section 324, P.P.C. Has been refused bail by the forums below vide their orders, dated 24-8-1998 and 28-9-1998 respectively, and has, therefore, now come up to this Court through the application in hand for the same relief.
2. The facts of the prosecution's case briefly are that Nasibuddin complainant on 21-6-1998 at 21-00 hours had made a report in the Emergency Ward of Civil Hospital D.I. Khan to the effect that on that evening at 20-30 hours after taking a cup of tea in a hotel in Chota Bazar, he was proceeding to the Mosque for performing prayers and when reached the shop of Ikramuddin, he was fired at by Jamaluddin son of Nasruddin with two shots hitting him on his neck and abdomen. The occurrence was stated to had been witnessed by said Ikramuddin besides others present on the spot. Motive for the crime was given to be that five/six years ago, a relative of the petitioner was killed for which the complainant was charged but subsequently acquitted, over which the petitioner was annoyed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the complainant had received injuries on the back of neck and back of right lumber area which the doctor had described as Shajjah-i- Khafifah and Ghair-Jaifah Badihah, entailing punishment of less than two years, therefore, case of the petitioner did not fall under the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C. And he is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant and State supported the impugned orders and argued that it was a case of Qatl-e-Amd, because intention of the petitioner was to kill the complainant in view of the previous enmity which disentitle him to bail.
5. After considering the arguments advanced at the bar and going through record of the case and medico-legal report of the victim, I find that since the petitioner is promptly charged for inflicting fire-arm injuries on vital parts of the complainant, therefore, a prima facie case is made out against him which attracts the provisions of Part I of section 324, P.P.C. As such, while relying on the dictum laid down in the case report 1996 SCM R 1270, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and his prayer for bail is, therefore, declined. However, since the challan is complete, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within four months positively, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to agitate his plea of bail afresh. Record of the case shall be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.