PLJ 2013 Cr.C.
(Peshawar) 546
[Abbottabad Bench]
[Abbottabad Bench]
Present: Waqar Ahmad Seth, J.
SHAHZEB
KHAN--Petitioner
versus
STATE and
another--Respondents
Crl. M. No. 687-A
of 2012, decided on 4.1.2013.
Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S.
497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324/34--Bail, grant of--Further
inquiry--On tentative assessment of the material--Only single fire shot is
attributed to the accused petitioner, which hit the injured complainant on left
thigh, a non vital part of the body--As per report of the Medical officer, no
bone has been fractured--Moreover, the accused petitioner did not repeat the
overt act to its extreme, although the complainant was at his mercy--Locale of
injuries and sufficient time to repeat the firing, whether Section 324, PPC can
be invoked or not is a question, which can only be resolved by the trial Court
after taking into consideration the relevant evidence to be recorded in this
respect--Moreover, there is a cross version recorded by the present
petitioner--Similarly, the Fire-arms Expert has given a negative report
regarding the pistol and the empties recovered from the spot--Hence, prima
facie, a case of further inquiry is made out in favour
of the petitioner, as envisaged in sub-section (2) of Section 497 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898--Bail allowed. [P.
548] A
Mr. Khurshid Azhar, Advocate for
Petitioner.
M/s. Muhammad Nawaz Khan Swati, AAG and Malik Khalid, Advocate for Respondents.
Date of hearing:
4.1.2013.
Judgment
Shahzeb Khan seeks his
post arrest bail in case FIR No. 348 dated 22.10.2012 for offences chargeable
under Section 324/34 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 13 A.O
registered in Police Station Sarai Saleh, District Haripur.
2. The case of
the prosecution, as set up in the FIR, is that the complainant Sher Khan son of Karam Khan on
22.10.2012 at 14.10 hours, in injured condition, reported to the police in
Emergency Ward, DHQ Hospital, Haripur that Shahzeb son of Aurangzeb had installed a drain on the roof
of his house, as a result, the water was falling inside the Courtyard of his
house; that at about 01.30 hours he alongwith his son
Jameel was closing the said drain on the roof, when
Aurangzeb son of Karam Khan came there and he caught
hold of him and his son Shahzeb fired at him with the
pistol, as a result, he was hit at his left thigh and became injured; that
there was no other motive for the offence.
3. Learned
counsel for the petitioner argued that the injuries sustained by the
complainant were on non-vital part of his body, and no bone
was found fractured by the Medical officer hence Section 324, PPC was not
applicable in the case; that there is a cross version of the present petitioner
recorded vide Madd No. 17 dated 22.10.2012; and that
the investigation is complete and the accused petitioner is no more required to
the police for further investigation; that the report of the fire-arms expert
regarding the pistol allegedly used in the crime was in negative. Learned
counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on 1996 SCMR 1845 and 2011 PCr.LJ 1635.
4. Conversely,
learned AAG and learned private counsel for complainant argued that the accused
petitioner was directly charged in a promptly lodged FIR with specific role of
effective firing at the complainant; that the eye-witnesses of the occurrence
have duly supported the version of the complainant; and that the medical
evidence also in consonance with the version of the complainant. Learned
counsel for the complainant in support of his submissions relied on 2011 YLR
191 and 2011 YLR 2736.
5. The Valuable
arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner heard and the available
record of the case thoroughly considered.
6. On tentative
assessment of the material available on record, only single fire shot is
attributed to the accused petitioner, which hit the injured complainant on left
thigh, a non vital part of the body. As per report of the Medical officer, no
bone has been fractured. Moreover, the accused petitioner did not repeat the
overt act to its extreme, although the complainant was at his mercy. Thus, in
view of the locale of injuries and sufficient time to repeat the firing,
whether Section 324, PPC can be invoked or not is a question, which can only be
resolved by the trial Court after taking into consideration the relevant
evidence to be recorded in this respect. Moreover, there is a cross version recorded
in Madd No. 17 dated 22.10.2012 by the present
petitioner. Similarly, the Fire-arms Expert has given a negative report
regarding the pistol and the empties recovered from the spot. Hence, prima
facie, a case of `further inquiry' is made out in favour
of the petitioner, as envisaged in sub-section (2) of Section 497 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898.
7. Accordingly,
for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application for post arrest
bail of the petitioner is allowed and petitioner Shahzeb
is granted bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/-
(One Hundred Thousands) with two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, Haripur, who shall ensure that the sureties are local,
reliable and men of means.
These are the
detailed reasons for short order of this Court dated 04.01.2013.
(A.S.) Bail allowed
