Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MIR WALI SHAH VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Peshawar High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri Title: MIR WALI SHAH vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No, 137 of 1988 Date of Judgment:1989-01-14 Reported As: 1989 P Cr. L J 1671 Result: Bail refused
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' The petitioner, his brother Meeroz Shah, since released on bail, are involved in a case registered against them under section 307/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Domel, District Bannu. They are alleged to have fired at Munawar Khan complainant while he was out in the fields on the mission of shooting. The complainant was hit with the fire shot of the petitioner while the other shot fired by Meeroz Shah went amiss. F.I.R. Was lodged at 6-30 a.m. On 8-9-1987 while the occurrence had taken place a little earlier. The petitioner and his brother were, however, arrested after a little less than nine months on 26-6-1988. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case of the petitioner and that of his co-accused who had been released on bail was identical and, therefore, he was also entitled to the same concession. He further submitted that the case against the petitioner would at worst be covered by section 308, P.P.C. And on that account to the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail. 3. The learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State has strenuously opposed the bail. 4. The case against Meeroz Shah accused is clearly distinguishable from that of the petitioner in that the effective shot has only been attributed to the petitioner while an ineffective role has been assigned to the former. The case of both the accused is, therefore, not at par. Likewise the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner falls within the purview of section 308, P.P.C. Is not tenable. Then it is not the proper stage to weigh this assertion of the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is of using fire-arm effectively in daylight, in firing at his opponent. The Investigation Officer has stated on the record that the
---
## Page 2
challan has been submitted on 17-9-1988. However, no evidence has been recorded because the file was requisitioned by this Court. There is, therefore, no justification to release the petitioner on bail in such a case. However, it is directed that the prosecution should produce its witnesses as early as possible and the learned trial Magistrate should ensure that the trial is completed within a period of four months. 5. Subject to these observations, this petition is dismissed.