' Accused-respondent Adam Khan has been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakki, vide his order dated 17-8-2002, in case F.I.R. No,84 dated 25-4-2002 of Police Station, Ghanznikhel, under sections 324/34, P.P.C. And now through the present application, complainant Abdul Malik seeks cancellation of the same from this Court.
2. According to the F.I.R., on the day of occurrence, complainant Abdul Malik alongwith his uncle Mir Aslam was present in his fields situated in front of his house. It was 'Digarvela' when in the meantime, the accused-petitioner, armed with a :30 bore pistol, and his co-accused Rahim came there. After some conversation between the accused-petitioner and his co-accused, the former fired at the complainant with his pistol, with which, the complainant received injury on left side of his neck. After the occurrence, the accused-petitioner and his co-accused decamped from the spot.
3. I have heard Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Marwat, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Advocate for the State and Mr. Nasrullah Khan Gandapur, Advocate, learned counsel for the accused-respondent and have also perused the record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to the accused-respondent mainly on the ground of minor age, on the basis of school certificate, according to which the date of birth being 13-2-1998, he was below the age of 18 years on the day of occurrence but perusal of medical evidence on record shows that the injury on the person of the petitioner was grievous in nature, as a result of which, his left arm has become paralysed and mere age in such cases in no ground for grant of bail. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on (i) 1978 SCM R 235 and (ii) 1992 PCr.LJ 423.
5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner carries weight. In the case reported in 1978 SCM R 235, their Lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan held that, "under the proviso to I subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Bail on the basis of young age be claimed as a matter of right". Similar observations were made by his Lordship of a Single Judge of this Court in the case reported in 1992 PCr.LJ 423.
6. By going through the record, it transpires that the accused-respondent is directly charged in the promptly lodged, F.I.R. For effective firing at the petitioner causing grievous injury to him at his neck.
The petitioner is present in Court and as a result of the grievous injury; his left arm has almost become paralysed. The petitioner's version is supported by the medical evidence on record and in view of the foregoing authorities, bail on account of mere age cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as such, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified to allow the accused-respondent the concession of bail.
7. Accordingly, this application is accepted and the to the accused-respondent by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby recalled. The accused-respondent is present in Court. He is taken into custody and sent to, the jail to face his trial.
Bail cancelled.