2003 PLP 2046 (YLR)

3. The motive behind the occurrence is that forest guard has got registered cases against them. On grudge over the same, they have committed the above act.

4. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that complainant and his companion were injured by some unknown persons and the occurrence was un-witnessed and the same is evident from the fact in the F.I.R.; that two shots have been ascribed to the petitioner- to the complainant while only one injury has been found on his (complainant) body; that this conflict in the narration of the F.I.R. and the Medical Report of the complainant has made his case open to further inquiry; that the injury found on the person of the complainant is superficial in nature and so the question of application of section 324, P.P.C. in the instant case against him needs consideration; that maximum offence under sections 337-A(i) or 337-F(i) can be attracted in the case and the same is bailable; that he is behind the bars for the last about three months and so far challan has not been submitted in the Court against him which is violation of statutory requirement; and that his co-accused Muhammad Ashraf has been allowed bail by the learned lower Court.

5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F. I. R.; that he fired two shots at the complainant hitting on his right flank and back of the chest; that repetition of fire by him shows that he in all case had intended to kill the complainant; that his (complainant) Medical Report has proved the presence of injuries on his person; that his case is distinguishable from co-accused Muhammad Ashraf inasmuch as that he did not repeat the injury and the injury ascribed to him was on the non-vital part of the body of injured Abdul Khaliq P.W.; and that in the above circumstances, offence under section 324, P.P.C. is attracted against him and it has rightly been applied in the case.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the side with the help of the available record.

7. According to the F.I.R., he (petitioner) has fired two shots with pistol at the complainant hitting him on his right flank and back of the chest. His Medico-legal Report shows the presence of the following injuries on his person:-- Injury No.1.

A fire-arm wound of entry measuring about 0.63 c.m. x 0.63 c.m. going deep in the Rt. iliac fosa. Injury No.2.

A fire-arm wound of exit measuring about 1.0 c.m. x 1.0 c.m. on back and lower part of Lt. abdomen above the Lt. buttock

8. The above position shows that injury was wound of entry and No. 2 of exit.

9. So, apparently there seems some conflict in the narration of the F.I.R. anal Medico-legal Report of the complainant as in the former two fire shots have been ascribes to him to the complainant while according to the latter one injury was there on his person.

10. I could avoid to further comment upon this aspect of the matter lest it may prejudice case of either of the parties at trial. Anyway, the nature of the injuries of the complainant, the measurement of which has been given above and the above indicated conflict in the ocular account as contained in the F.I.R. and the medical report shows that the question that if he had intended to kill him needs consideration. So, his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

11. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about three months and a previous non-convict.

12. In these circumstances, the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. H.B.T./M-1809/L Bail granted.