' Through this application, the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,66 of 2001, registered on 14-4-2001 for an occurrence which took place on the same day at 9-10 a.m. On the statement of Rehmat Khan under sections 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the F.I.R. Are that Ahmad Khan was constructing a will of his house where Muhammad Akram co-accused tried to intervene and harsh words exchanged. Muhammad Akram went to his house and can back while armed with gun alongwith Muhammad Azam petitioner armed with Carbine, Shah Nawaz armed with hatchet, Muhammad Aslam armed with sota and an unknown person armed with Sota. They abused the complainant party. Muhammad Akram fired a shot which hit Mst. Nazir Begum wife of the complainant on her face and belly.
Second shot as alleged to have been fired by Muhammad Azam petitioner with Carbine hit Mst.
Nazir Begum on both her legs who fell down. Other accused persons also caused Sota blows on the different parts of Mst. Nazir Begum.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in fact the complainant party was aggressor and police has not registered the case on the application of the wife of the petitioner. He further contends that the petitioner has moved number of applications for the registration of the case up to the level of SSP, Gujrat but failed. He further contends that the allegations levelled in the F.1.R.
Against the petitioner were false. He did not fire shot and injured the P.W. But has been involved due to mala tide intention. He contends that actually the petitioner was in possession of the land and the complainant party has taken the possession forcibly. According to him this occurrence has taken place in which the complainant party were the aggressor as they wanted to obtain the possession illegally. He further contends that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and he has been declared innocent by the police.
4 Learned Assistant Advocate-General and State counsel have opposed the bail application on the grounds that the name of the petitioner has been mentioned in the F.I.R. And specific role of firing is ascribed to him. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause and petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. However, the A.S.-I./I.O. States that though the petitioner was present at the time of occurrence but it has not been proved that he fired at the wife of the complainant.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that of firing at Mst. Nazir Begum at her legs. I have perused the medico-legal report. Serious wounds are found on the right thigh and inner aspect of the lower and right leg of Mst. Nazir Begum. Prima facie the allegation levelled against the petitioner are supported by the medical evidence and he has been alleged to have fired at the injured supports the specific role ascribed to the petitioner. The opinion by the Investigating Officer that though the petitioner was present at the spot but he has not fired at the injured is not sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The opinion of the police is not binding on the Court. Even; otherwise, the injured witness and the 'other witnesses have supported the version given in the F.I.R. That the petitioner was present at the spot while armed with a carbine and fired. The petitioner is involved in a case covered by prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And his conduct that he did not appear before the Investigating Officer or before any Court of law till 11th of May, 2001 and remained fugitive from law is also a circumstances against him. His co-accused are still absconding in this case. In the circumstance of the case, I do not feel that this is a fit case for the grant of bail. This application has no merits and is dismissed.