' Applicant Khuda Bux has sought bail in a case registered for an offence punishable under section 324, P.P.C. In this case the victim namely Wahid Bux has received as many as 14 knife injuries.
According to F.I.R. Lodged by father of the victim, the applicant/accused is brother of Mst.
Rasheeda wife of injured Wahid Bux. On some domestic affairs Mst. Rasheeda got displeased and went away to the house of her father where the applicant restrained her from returning back, but about one month prior to this incident the injured brought his wife back. On that the applicant got annoyed and threatened to see the victim. On 20-5-2000 the applicant got an opportunity and inflicted knife blows upon the victim with intention to kill him. The incident was witnessed by the, complainant and two witnesses.
2. Learned counsel for applicant contended that enmity between the parties is evident from the F.I.R. And the witnesses are also interested persons while the injuries are on non-vital parts of the body, therefore. The case of applicant calls for further inquiry. He relied on Karim Bux v. State 1983 PCr.LJ 2379 and Jan Muhammad v. Noor Jamal 1998 SCM R 500 in support of his contentions.
3. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Memon, learned State Counsel opposed the bail on the ground that the applicant has inflicted 14 injuries on different parts of the body of victim, his name is mentioned in the promptly lodged F.I.R. And in fact there was no previous enmity between the parties. It was the applicant who had made one-sided declaration and issued threats. The crime weapon has also been recovered from the applicant. The applicant had absconded away after the commission of the offence and was arrested after 1-1/2 months.
4. The contentions of learned State Counsel carry sufficient weight. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are also distinguishable. In Jan Muhammad's case (supra) bail was granted by the Sessions Judge which was cancelled by the High Court and the cancellation order was set aside by the Honourable Supreme Court. In the instant case the trial Court has declined bail to the applicant/accused. Moreover, fourteen injuries are attributed to the applicant who, in the background of the case, prima facie, dealt with the victim in a cruel manner, as such it cannot be said that the allegation to commit Qatl-e-Amd calls for further inquiry. In Karim Bux's case the applicant/accused was admitted to bail before arrest as the prosecution did not oppose the same on the ground that he was an old man of about 60 years and was Pesh Imam of a mosque. Besides, only one injury was attracted to him. This authority, thus, does not help the case of the applicant.
5. It may, however, be concluded that the plea raised by learned counsel for applicant can justly be appreciated in the light of the evidence to be recorded at the trial and at this stage it is premature to go deep into the evidence. Accordingly, while dismissing the bail application it is directed that the trial Court shall examine the material witnesses within three months of communication of this order and after that period the applicant would be entitled to move fresh application.