Ameer Rehman vs State.

2010 Y L R 1325

[Peshawar]

Be f o r e Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, J

AMEER RAHMAN---Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE and another---Respondents

Bail Application No. 1602 of 2009, decided on 2nd November, 2009.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337-F(v)---Hashimah---Bail, refusal of-- Complainant aged about 80/82 years was attacked by accused for a very petty matter--- Ocular account of commission of offence with a specific role given to accused and abscondence after the occurrence, established prima facie case against the accused---Argument that accused was entitled to concession of bail in a case wherein punishment for the o f f e n c e did not fall in the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.; or the concession of bail in such cases could not be withheld which in other words would amount to a premature punishment, was not applicable in every case and the concession of bail could be declined by the courts in cases not covered by prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., if some exceptional circumstances were present---Accused being not entitled to t he grant of bail, bail petition was dismissed---As investigation in the case was complete, prosecution was directed to submit challan against a c c u s e d b e f o r e the Trial Court within s p e c i f i e d period.

Sher Muhammad Khan for Petitioner.

Fazalur Rehman Khan, A.A.-G. for the State.

Sultan Muhammad Khan for the Complainant.

Date of hearing: 2nd November, 2009.

JUDGMENT

MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---The accused petitioner was booked in case F.I.R. No. 249 dated 9-9-2009 Police Station Alpuri, District Shangla under section 337-F(v), P.P.C. for giving blows to the complainant with an axe when he asked the accused petitioner that why he was cutting grass in his field.

2.The accused petitioner was refused bail by the lower forums and he has moved the present application to seek his release on bail.

3.The learned counsel for the accused petitioner in support of his application submitted that there was considerable delay in reporting the matter to the police. The medical report reflects that the complainant received injuries through a blunt means whereas he was charged for giving blows with an axe. So the report and the medical evidence are in conflict with each other and there was no evidence to substantiate motive given in the F.I.R. on the ground that the Investigating Officer has neither recovered the cut grass nor has shown the reaped portion of the field. He was of the view that accused petitioner is charged with an offence punishment provided for which is "Daman" and he may also be sentenced for a term which may extend to 5 years and as such the case of the accused petitioner does not come within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and thus is entitled to grant of bail.

4.The learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Fazal-ur-Rehman assisted by counsel for the complainant Barrister Sultan Muhammad Khan while refuting the arguments of the counsel for the accused petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner was directly charged with specific role which was supported by medical evidence and there were eye-witnesses who have supported version of the complainant. Recovery of the crime weapon (axe) was also effected from the house of the accused which was sufficient to connect the accused petitioner with the commission of a non-bailable offence. He remained absconder till 23-9-2009 and the victim of the offence was a senior citizen aged about 82 years. They submitted that a prima facie case was established against the accused petitioner who is not entitled to the concession of bail in the circumstances of the case.

5.Perusal of the record reveals that complainant aged about 80/82 years was attacked by the accused petitioner for a very petty matter. There is ocular account of the commission of offence with a specific role given to the accused and abscondence after the occurrence established a prima facie case against the accused petitioner. The argument that the accused is entitled to the concession of bail in a case wherein punishment for the offence does fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. or the concession of bail in such cases cannot be withheld which in other words will amount to a premature punishment, is not applicable in every case and the concession of bail can be declined by the Courts in cases not covered by the prohibitory clause if there are some exceptional circumstances of the case.

6.In the light of observations made above, the accused in the present case is not entitled to the grant of bail. Hence this petition is hereby dismissed. As investigation in the case is complete, the prosecution is directed to submit Challan against the accused petitioner before the trial Court within a period of two weeks and the trial Court is further directed to conclude the trial within shortest possible time but not later than three months of the date of submission of the Challan.

H.B.T./86/P Bail refused.