2005 PLP 454 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 8th June, 2004. Petitioner Nasir through the instant petition has sought for after -arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.487, dated 5‑7‑2003 under sections 452/ 324/337‑F(vi)/148/149, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Chak Jhumra, District Faisalabad.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on the night between 28/29‑6‑2003 at about 2‑00 a.m. Nasir (petitioner) son of Muhammad Sardar, armed with repeater .12 bore, Pathana with Sota, Muhammad Aslam with 7 MM, Nasir son of Phatana with .12 bore gun, Muhammad Razzaq with Danda and Imtiaz alias Apho with Sota trespassed into the house of Dad Ali, the brother of the complainant. He, his son Muhammad Ajmal, and family were asleep there. On the Lalkara of Pathana, Nasir son of Sardar Muhammad (petitioner), fired with .12 bore repeater Muhammad Ajmal and the same hit at his right thigh and it went through the same and hit his left thigh, who fell down and they (accused) decamped from the scene.

3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in by the complainant on account of enmity as he is an eye‑witness in case F.I.R. No.489 registered under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. with the aforesaid Police Station on 26‑9‑2001 against the complainant and other and in these circumstances the question, of his false implication in the instant case cannot be ruled out; that he has been ascribed solitary fire shot to Muhammad Ajmal injured, hitting on his thighs; that he did not repeat the fire on him; that the doctor has declared the injuries of the injured to be falling within the provisions of section 337‑F(v), Cr.P.C. being Ghyr‑Jaifah Manaqqilah though the Police have mentioned these to be falling under section 337‑F(vi); that due to the locale of the injuries of the injured and non‑repetition of fire by him, there is scope of further inquiry into his guilt; that in such circumstances the intention to kill the injured cannot be attributed to him that he is behind the bars; that his trial has not commenced; and that he is previous non‑convict.

4. Conversely, the learned State counsel has opposed petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; and that he has caused fire arm injuries to the injured.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides with the help of the available record.

6. The fact remains that he has been ascribed solitary fire shot to injured Muhammad Ajmal and that too on the non‑vital part of his body like thighs. He did not repeat the fire to him.

7. In view of the locale of the injuries of the injured and non repetition of fire by him, the question of application of section 324, P.P.C. against him needs serious consideration. The case against him, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt.

8. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last more than 10 months and statedly his trial as yet has not commenced, which has not been controverted by the other side. He is also stated to be previous non -convict.

9. In these circumstances, I find him 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. H.B.T./N‑124/L Bail granted.