Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1898)

Section: 307 , 353 , 34

  Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- ---S.307---When a person shoots at another person with a gun, rifle or other fire arm in a manner and under such circumstances that if the shot had hit the latter the same would have killed him, but he misses his aim, offence would still be one under S.307, P.P.C. although even a scratch is not caused by such firing. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- --S.497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/353/34---Bail, cancellation of-- Lower Court had failed to notice that severity of offence was not reduced merely because victim was lucky enough to escape unhurt or survived after having been hit---Unexplained noticeable abscondence of accused for more than two months had also been ignored by lower Court---Release of accused on bail, thus was arbitrary and perverse in circumstances---Bail granted to accused respondent was accordingly cancelled. Nazar Muhammad v. State 1977 P Cr. L J 277 ref. Awal Gul v. Zawar Khan P L D 1985 S C 402 rel. Abdur Rashid Khan for Petitioner. Sh. Nazar Hussain for Respondent. Hamesh Gul Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 4th October, 1989. ORDER I have, by my short order dated 4th October, 1989, cancelled the bail granted to the accused. The following are the reasons for doing so. This is an application by Shadid Khan for cancellation of the bail granted to Wali Khan respondent who is facing charges under sections 307 and 353 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The facts are that on 23-11-1988 at 1025 hours, Shadid Khan complainant, who was serving as a Teacher in Government Primary School, Shahbaz Kakki, at a distance of one kilometre from the Police Station, lodged a report wherein he charged the accused-respondent Wali Khan to have fired at him ineffectively with a shotgun of .12 bore at the exhortation of his father Raees Khan. The occurrence was alleged to have   been witnessed by Ayub Khan, Head Master and the children who were studying in the School. The motive set up in the F.I.R. was that the complainant had a dispute over a land with the father of the respondent which had been compromised. Nonetheless, the respondent and his father had attempted at his life. Soon after the…