2011 P Cr. L J 1012
[Quetta]
Before Muhammad Noor Meskanzai, J
MUHAMMAD AKBAR and 2 others ---Applicants
Versus
THE.STATE ---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 247 of 2010, decided on 9th December, 2010.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497(2) ---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34 ---Attempt to commit qatle -e-amd---Bail,
grant of ---Further inquiry ---Two eye -witnesses attributed act of indiscriminate firing to all three
accused persons, which culminated in causing of bullet injury to the son of the complainant ---
Statement of victim recorded later on took a departure from th e story as far as the causing of
injury was concerned ---Delay of 18 hours in lodging F.I.R., while Police Station was situated at.
the distance of two kilometers ---Police had collected eight empties from different places, but site
plan did not show exact l ocation of empties and presence of accused at the relevant place ---One
of the accused persons was not entitled for grant of bail because victim had sustained bullet
injury in consequence of firing made by said accused ---Since allegation against other two
accused persons was of ineffective firing, their case fell within the scope of subsection (2) of
S.497, Cr.P.C. calling further inquiry ---Said two co -accused, were allowed bail, in
circumstances.
Riaz Ahmed for Applicants.
Miss Rubina Butt, D.P. -G. fo r the State.
Date of hearing: 1st December, 2010.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, J. ---Applicants, seek bail, in Crime No. 52 of 2010
registered on 16 -9-2010, at 1 -30 p.m., under section 324/34, P.P.C. by one Khaissor with Police
Station Dukki District Loralai.
Facts, as borne out of - record are that on 15 -9-2010, at 7 -00 p.m. complainant, along with his
son and other relatives was sitting in front of Masjid, Amir Muhammad, Dost Muhammad, Gul
Muhammad and Muhammad Akbar armed with Kalashnikov s started tiring upon the
complainant and his son. Dost Muhammad son of Khaissor received bullet injury on his right eye
and the victim was removed to Quetta. Persuant to said F.I.R. police started investigation and
arrested the appellants.
Application f or bail was moved in the Court of Sessions Judge, Loralai, which was declined,
vide order dated 13 -10-2010, hence this application.
Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants have
been booked in a false case and there is no independent evidence to connect applicant with the
alleged commission of crime. It was urged with vehemence that there is considerable delay in
lodging of F.I.R. and no explanation has been offered by the prosecution. Inordinate delay,
leaves no room for doubt that F.I.R. has been lodged with consultation and deliberation. It was
further submitted that no eye -witness has been mentioned in the F.I.R. Challan has been
submitted and applicants are no more required for the purpose of investigation. The statement of
victim has been recorded on 22 -9-2010 and there is no explanation by the prosecution. It was
contended that in any case according to the statement of victim, role of effective firing has been
attributed to Amir Muhammad alone, therefore, case of rest of applicants falls within the ambit
of further inquiry and applicants are entitled for grant of bail.
Miss Rubina Jabeen Butt, learned D.P. -G. vehemently opposed the bail application. She
contended that applicants have been nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role. There are
eyewitnesses, who have recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. and applicants have
been implicated. She submitted that there in no delay in lodging of F.I.R. because complainant
instantaneously removed the victim to Quetta. The victim remained hospitalized at Quetta and
was discharged on 21 -9-2010. On 22 -09-2010, he recorded his statement, therefore, no question
of delay.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. It is the case of
prosecution that on 15 -9-2010, at 7 -30 p.m., victim and his father were sitting in front of the
Masjid. Applicants reached there and attacked upon the complainant and his son by firing with
deadly weapons. In order to save their lives, they st arted running, in the meanwhile, Dost
Muhammad sustained a bullet injury on his right eye. Police recorded the statements of two
eyewitnesses namely Abdul Majeed and Abdul Wahid. P.W. Abdul Majeed has stated that on
15-9-2010 he along with other relatives was waiting for Maghrib Prayers, in the meanwhile
accused persons armed with Kalashnikov came out from their house and started firing upon
Khaissor and his son Dost Muhammad. Dost Muhammad sustained injury in consequence of
such firing. Statement of Abdul Wahid is to the same effect. A meaningful glance of
prosecution case reveals that two eyewitnesses attributed act of indiscriminate firing to all
the applicants, which culminated in causing of bullet injury to the son of complainant. The
statement of victi m recorded on 22 -9-2010 takes a departure from the story as far as the causing
of injury is concerned. According to victim, applicant Amir Muhammad chased him and in
consequence of firing made by Amir Muhammad, he sustained injury on his right eye. There i s
delay of 18 hours in lodging of F.I.R. and police station is situated at the distance of two kilo
meters. Though police has collected eight empties from different places, yet there is no site plan
showing exact location of empties and, presence of accuse d at the relevant place. I have given
my anxious thoughts to the entitlement of applicants for concession of bail. A careful
examination of record reflects that Amir Muhammad is not entitled for grant of bail, because
victim has sustained bullet injury in consequence of firing made by Amir Muhammad. However
as far as the case of rest of the applicants namely Muhammad Akbar and Dost Muhammad is
concerned, I am of the considered opinion, since allegation against the above named two
applicants is of ineffectiv e firing, therefore, their case falls within the scope of subsection (2) of
section 497, Cr.P.C. as such applicants Nos.1 and 2 are found entitled for grant of bail. Thus I am
inclined to allow bail to the applicants namely Muhammad Akbar and Dost Muhammad subject
to furnishing of sureties in sum of Rs. 200,000 (rupees two lac only) each with PR of like amount
to the satisfaction of trial Court. Upon furnishing of sureties they shall be released forthwith in
F.I.R. No.52 of 2010 registered with Police Stati on, Duki District Loralai, if not required in any
other case or offence and the application to the extent of applicant No.3 Amir Muhammad is
hereby rejected.
Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
The observations made hereinabove are t entative in nature, which are not to influence merit of
the case.
H.B.T./30/Q Order accordingly.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.