' Petitioner seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.336 of 2003 dated 17-12-2003 under sections 324, 452, 337-F(iii), 337-F(v), 148 and 149, P.P.C. Registered at. Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as stated in the F.I.R. Lodged by the complainant is that on the fateful day at about 6-30 a.m. The complainant along with his family was present in the house of his paternal uncle. The accused persons variously 'armed entered into the house by scaling over the wall. The complainant and his paternal cousins in order to save themselves entered into the room and locked the door from inner side. The accused party tried to break the door, whereupon, females of the complainant party confronted with the accused persons, then accused Mumtaz asked the co-accused to open the fire, the accused persons started to make aerial firing and accused Muhammad Azhar made a rifle fire, which hit to Mst. Faizan Bibi on her left thigh and Muhammad Arshad (petitioner) also made a rifle fire, which hit to Mst. Tasleem Akhtar on her left knee. The occurrence was seen by Amjad Zia and Farooq and they made counter-attack in the shape of aerial firing with rifle 222 and then the accused party succeeded to escape from the spot raising their weapons of offence in the air.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that name of the petitioner is in fact Sarwar son of Manzoor Ahmad, while, in the F.I.R. It has been wrongly mentioned as Arshad; that no final opinion with respect to the injury allegedly caused by he petitioner to Mst. Tasleem Akhtar has so far been obtained by the police; that the seat of the injury is knee of the victim, which by no means can be termed to be a vital part of the body, so as to attract the intention to kill, therefore, the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. Are not applicable and the only allegation that can be raised against the petitioner would become that of section 337-F(v), P.P.C., which is punishable for 5 years, that no recovery memo. Is available on record with respect to the crime weapon; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 19-1-2004; that admittedly there is previous enmity between the parties, therefore, question of false implication is also involved in the case.
4. On the other band, learned counsel for the State has opposed this application by contending that the final report with respect to the injury will be filed at the time of trial; that the recovery memo. Of the crime weapon is available on the record of a case registered against the petitioner under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The seat of injury is undoubtedly on a non-vital part of the body. The petitioner has not repeated any injury to anybody else. The police has also not yet collected the final report regarding the injury received by Mst. Tasleem Akhtar. The petitioner is behind the bars since 19-1-2004. Prima facie, intention to kill does not appear to be available keeping in view the seat of injury and non- repetition. Resultantly, petitioner is admitted to bail subject to this furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
7. Before parting with the order, it is to be observed that Muhammad Iqbal A.S.-I. Present in Court has submitted his explanation for non-production of judicial record on the last date of hearing. It appears to be satisfactory. No further proceedings in that regarding are called for.