' The petitioner seeks cancellation of to respondents Nos.1 to 4 by Additional Sessions Judge, Liaquatpur vide his order, dated 14-12-2001 in case F.I.R. No,181 of 2001 registered under sections 324, 327, 341, 148, 149, 109, P.P.C. At Police Station Tranda Muhammad Panah, District Rahimyar Khan.
2. The facts of the prosecution case as narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R. At the Police Station are that on 27-7-2001 when he alongwith his other companions was going to his house and when reached Mauza Ghabol, the respondents alongwith other co-accused persons armed with deadly weapons forming unlawful assembly started making fires on the car which was damaged and the complainant/ petitioner was taken out of car and he was beaten by firing shots and blunt weapons and he had been caused injuries with intent to kill him. On his hue and cry the prosecution witnesses attracted to the spot and on seeing them the accused person made their escape good.
The bail after arrest of the respondents was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide his order, dated 14-12-2001 which has been impugned through the instant petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Abid Shah complainant had received 20 injuries and two out of same were caused by fire-arm; that the offence under section 324, P.P.C. Is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years and is covered within the prohibitory clause of section
497. Cr.P.C. That the weapon of offence pistol has been recovered from the respondent No,2 Muhammad Iqbal.
4. Conversely, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner have been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents contending that the complainant in his supplementary statement has named Mukhtar Ahmad accused who caused him fire-arm injury; that no injury has been caused on the vital part of the body of the complainant; that out of 11 accused persons nominated by the complainant seven have been declared as innocent, which makes the prosecution story as doubtful. He further contended that the challan of the case has been sent to the Court and no useful purpose would be served in detaining the respondents behind the bars.
5. I have heard the argument of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. According to the prosecution story, respondents Nos. 1 to 4 alongwith other co-accused persons have been named in the F.I.R and they formed an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common intention. The police after investigation had declared, respondents Nos. 1 to 4 as guilty.
From the perusal of the medico-legal report it transpires that the petitioner sustained four fractures injuries on his legs and the petitioner had been operated twice and his right leg has been grafting. According to the report of Dr. Khalid Ahmad Gil. Assistant Professor (Ortho) QMC/B.V.H., Bahawalpur left ankle of the petitioner is still fixed and he is unable to move. The offence under section 324, P.P.C. Is covered within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, while granting bail to the respondents has omitted to mention the offence under section 324, P.P.C., reasons best known to him. Injuries Nos.12 and 13 are on the vital parts of the body of the complainant/petitioner. The accused persons by giving 20 injuries on the person of the complainant have made him incapacitated/ invalidated. The accused/respondents who are involved in a heinous offence under section 324, P.P.C., which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Are not entitled for any concession of bail. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 are vicariously liable for the commission of offence punishable with 10 years' imprisonment by. Forming an unlawful assembly. The learned lower Court while granting bail to the respondents has not applied its mind to the above aspect of the case.
7. For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in observing that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Liaqatpur is not sustainable in law. Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous is accepted and the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Liaquatpur allowing bail to the respondents is recalled and the post-arrest to the respondents is cancelled. They be taken into custody forthwith.
8. When I announced the order, certain unknown persons entered in the Court-room and started beating the respondents Nos.1 to 4 and injured them, whose bail had been cancelled by this Court.
These persons created rowdyism and hooliganism in the face of the Court and disturbed the Court proceedings. They have been directed to be taken into custody as they are liable to be prosecuted under Article 204 of the Constitution. The Deputy Registrar (J) is directed to register a separate criminal original petition against them and place before me today. A copy of this order shall also be placed on the file of criminal original.
Bail cancelled.