2006 PLP 752 (YLR)

SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.

The petitioner has filed this after arrest bail application in F.I.R. No.476 of 2005, dated 11-8-2005, under section 324, P.P.C. at Police Station, Saddar, Jhang. Brietly, according to the F.I.R., the complainant was ploughing fields with tractor along with his tenants. That suddenly petitioner appeared along with co-accused and after raising Lalkara fired with .30 bore pistol which pierced through the shirt of the complainant, luckily bullet did not hit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is a Manager of Pir Jalal-ud-Din who is big landlord of the area. The petitioner is a small landlord, owner of 30 Kanals of land. The complainant's master wants to buy the land of the petitioner which has been refused and the same is a cause of registration of the present case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the occurrence never took place. He also submits that firing in any case remained ineffective as no injury was caused. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits that it is a day light occurrence and there is no room for any mistake of identification and the petitioner is attributed a role of firing at the complainant. The weapon of offence used in the F.I.R. has also been recovered which connect petitioner with the commission of the offence. According to him, the petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail at this stage. I have heard both the learned counsel. According to the contents of F.I.R., when petitioner raised Lalkara, the complainant raised his arms and requested the petitioner not to fire or cause injury to him, but the petitioner fired with .30-bore pistol. The bullet of the pistol pierced through the shirt of the complainant while his arms were in raised condition. Prima facie, this kind of story is not believable. Even otherwise, if the facts and circumstances were as narrated in the F.I.R., non-repetition of the petitioner of firing raises question and makes the version of the complainant doubtful. Nevertheless, it is on the record that no injury was caused by the petitioner and he did not repeat the fire, therefore, it is not safe to believe that petitioner had intention to kill the complainant. Therefore, whether section 324, P.P.C. is attracted or not would be considered and seen by the trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. In any case, challan has already been submitted and the petitioner is not required any more for investigation. In view of the above circumstances, the case of the petitioner falls in a category where further inquiry is required' to establish his guilt. These observations are only meant for the disposal of this bail application. In view of the above reasons and discussion, this bail application is allowed subject to petitioner's furnishing of surety bonds in Rs.30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Ilaga Magistrate. H.B.T./G-4/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.