2005 PLP 681 (YLR)

2. Briefly the prosecution case, as per F.I.R. is that on 23‑5‑2004 at about 10‑30 a.m. Muhammad Basharat alias Khan armed with .222 rifle and Umar Shahzad alias Saieen with .30 bore pistol, in furtherance of their common intention, at the instance of one Muhammad Iqbal, had attempted the Qatl‑e‑Amd of Muhammad Shahbaz, the son of the complainant. Muhammad Basharat alias Khan had inflicted blow of butt of .222 rifle to him hitting on his head. Umar Shahzad alias Saieen had fired successive shots at him and one of his such fires had hit him on his left thigh and he fell down. On the attraction of the witnesses at the spot, the accused fled away from the scene while firing.

3. The motive behind the occurrence is that about 4/5 months prior to the same, the accused had assaulted upon one Muhammad Akram and the case in respect thereof was registered against them and Muhammad Shahbaz injured was the witness against them in the same.

4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been roped in; that the story of the F. I. R. on the face of it is not believable; that such story, if may be believed as it is, the same absolutely is inconsistent to the M.L.R. of the injured as according to the same his one fire had hit injured Muhammad Shahbaz on his left thigh while no such injury was found on that part of his body and it rather was on the left buttock; that his co‑accused Muhammad Basharat alias Khan, who has been ascribed head injury to injured has been admitted to bail vide the order dated 24‑7‑2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kharian and his case is on better footing than that of him as he had inflicted injury on the non-vital part of his bally; that the benefit of every doubt, even at bail stage is given to accused and in this regard reliance has been placed upon the case of Aslam Khan v. Qaiser Khan and 2 others 1999 PCr. LJ 582 Lahore; and that he is behind the bars for the last about four months and a previous non‑convict while his trial as yet has not commenced.

5. As against the same, the learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R., which has been lodged promptly; that he has been ascribed a specific role of firing at the injured and so at this stage it will not be appropriate to go into the deep merits of the case in the form of bail application; that the challan stands submitted in the Court; and that the contradiction, if any between the F.I.R. and the M.L.R. of the injured, the same will be seen at trial.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of the available record.

7. According to the F.I.R., he had fired .30 bore pistol's shots successively at injured Muhammad Shahbaz but all these except one had proved to be ineffective. The only effective shot attributed to him was on the injurer s left thigh. The same, thus was on the non‑vital part of his body..

8. I have gone through the M. L. R. of the injured. There has been found no injury on his left thigh. According to his Medico- Legal Report, the injury No.2 was on his left buttock. There is, thus an apparent contradiction in between the narration of the F.I.R. regarding his role and the M.L.R. of the injured.

9. In view of this position, I have not the least hesitation in holding that his case calls for further inquiry into his guilt and so falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

10. Besides than this, I have also found with the petition, the copy of order dated 24‑7‑2004 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kharian. He vide the same has allowed bail to his co accused Muhammad Basharat alias Khan.

11. It may be mentioned here with concern that the said accused has been ascribed blow with the butt of .222 rifle to the injured at his head. It, if seen from that angle, then his case is quite better than that of him for the purposes of bail. The rule of consistency, thus also comes into play in his case. It may also mentioned here that benefit of every doubt, even at bail stage is to be given to accused. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the above cited esteemed authority Aslam Khan v. Qaiser Khan and 2 others 1999 PCr.LJ 582 Lahore.

12. He is behind the bars for the last about four months and stated to be a previous non‑convict, which has not been controverted by the other side.

13. It may be mentioned here that case of an accused, when may be found fit for bail, then he is not to be detained unnecessarily for a moment even.

14. In these circumstances, I have been persuaded to hold that he is entitled to bail. The petition,‑ therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

15. It is, however, made clear here that the above observations are tentative in nature. These shall not influence the mind of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./U‑16/L Bail granted.