PLJ 2010 Cr.C.
(
[
Present:
Muhammad Qasim Khan, J.
M. JAVED alias Jaidi--Petitioner
versus
STATE and
another--Respondents
Crl. M. No. 2717-B of 2010, decided on 18.8.2010.
Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan
Penal Code, (XLV of 1860)--Ss. 324, 337-A(i),
337-F(v), 337-L(2), 427, 148 & 149--Bail, grant of--Further Inquiry--Not
nominated in FIR--Joint role of firing at victim--No specification as to whose
fire hit the victim--No repetition of fire on the part of
accused--Applicability of offence u/S. 324, PPC was a matter requiring further
inquiry--At the most injury caused to the victim was covered by
S. 337-F(v), PPC, which offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of S.
497, Cr.P.C.--Opinion of doctor about one of the
injury having been caused with blunt weapon also makes the case against the
accused one of further inquiry--Accused was behind the bars without any
substantial progress in the trial--Bail was allowed. [P. 900] A
Mr. Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi,
Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Amjad Rafique, DPG for State.
Date of hearing:
18.8.2010.
Order
Petitioner seeks
post arrest bail in case FIR No.88 dated 15.2.2010 registered with Police
Station Qutabpur,
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner
is that he along with co-accused stopped the car, where after, Shahid co-accused inflicted Rifle butt blow on the car
towards driver's side and then Javed petitioner and Shahid co-accused made firing at the car, hitting Asif Abbas driver.
3. It is argued by learned counsel that
petitioner has been falsely involved in the case. Further argued that two
accused have been attributed fire shots without any specification as to whose
fire hit the victim. The learned counsel further argued that in the medical
report one injury has been shown to be result of blunt weapon, which fact
negates the prosecution case. It is next contended that offence under Section
324-PPC is not applicable and at the most it is case of Section 337-F(v) PPC which
offence does not fall within prohibitory clause, as such, petitioner is
entitled for the grant of post arrest bail.
4. The learned DPG opposed the bail by
contending that petitioner is nominated in the FIR with specific attribution of
causing fire arm injury to the victim.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Although the petitioner is nominated in the
FIR but a joint role of firing at the victim has been assigned to him along
with co-accused. There is no specification as to whose fire hit the victim.
Admittedly, there is no repetition of fire on the part of the petitioner, as such applicability of offence under Section
324 PPC is a matter requiring further inquiry. At the most the injury caused to
the victim is covered by Section 337-F(v) PPC, which
offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, opinion of the doctor about one of the
injury having been caused with blunt weapon also makes the case against the
petitioner one of further inquiry. The petitioner is behind the bars without
any substantial progress in the trial. Therefore, this petition is allowed and
petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum
of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
(R.A.) Bail allowed.