1997 PLP 1553 (MLD)

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it was a night occurrence and a serious question of identification of the accused will arise during the trial and that in the F.I.R. it is stated that Nausher co‑accused fired with a pistol which hit on the arm of Ghulam Muhammad and thereafter Mazhar petitioner fired a shot with .12 bore gun which hit on the left shoulder of the petitioner but this allegation of the complainant is not supported by the medical report as the possibility of the injuries received by the injured being caused by a single shot cannot be ruled out; that the injuries were allegedly caused on non‑vital part of the body and that prima facie the offence alleged under section 324, P.P.C. would not be made out rather the offence would fall under section 337‑F(ii) which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

3. Learned State Counsel argued that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. with a specific role of causing fire‑arm injury to Ghulam Muhammad injured and the petitioner had a motive to launch an attack upon the injured.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

5. Admittedly the injuries were inflicted on non‑vital part of the body during the late hours of the night and no source of light was mentioned in the F.I.R., which could enable the complainant or the P.Ws. to identify the culprits the time of occurrence. The injured was attacked when he was sleeping on a cot under a Keeker tree, near the cattle heads. I have perused the medical report which indicates the following injuries on the person of Ghulam Muhammad son of Dara:‑‑‑ (i) Two lacerated wounds each measuring 0.4 x 0.4 c.m. on front of left shoulder, skin deep, edges are inverted. (2) Three lacerated wounds each measuring 0.4 x 0.4 c.m. on fronto lateral part, lower part of left arm. (3) A lacerated wound measuring 2 x 0.5 cm, muscle deep on front of left forearm. The narration of these injuries does not specifically show that injuries No. 1 and 2 were the result of two different shots. Injuries Nos.1 and 2 were kept under observation and vide X‑ray Report No.30/95 dated 6‑12‑1995 the Doctor opined that:‑‑‑ Five foreign bodies (Metallic) seen in skiagram of left arm and no fracture was seen in the forearm.

6. The occurrence took place during the night between 30‑11‑1995 and 1‑12‑1995 and the medical examination was conducted on 1‑12‑1995 at 5 a.m. and the matter was reported to the police on 12‑12‑1995 for which no explanation has been furnished by the complainant. It will be pertinent to observe that Ghulam Muhammad witness had received injuries on his arm which is not the vital part of the body, besides these were found to be simple in nature. The injury thus at the most would fall under section 337‑F (ii), P.P.C. which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. All these factors when examined together would call for further enquiry into the guilt of the petitioner as envisaged under section 497, Cr.P.C. Admittedly the injured has cured and is not admitted in the hospital. In similar circumstances in case Muhammad Afsar v. The State reported as 1994 SCMR 2051, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan accepted the petition and granted bail to the petitioner. For what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and the petitioner Mazhar is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Civil Judge/Magistrate Section 30/Trial Judge, Vehari. Any observation made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during the trial and the trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of evidence produced before it. N.H.Q./M‑111/L Bail granted.