' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--- Through this petition; the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in the case F.I.R.
No,214, dated 26-8-2004 registered at Police Station Kalur Kot, District Bhakkar for offences under section 324/34, P.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26-8-2004 while the complainant was present at the barber shop, the petitioner along with co-accused Shafi Ullah son of Noor Khan both armed with .30 bore pistols came there and after raising Lalkara fired at the complainant who hit him on both his legs. The accused thereafter escaped from the spot. The motive of the occurrence was stated to be an altercation between Shafi Ullah and the complainant a few days before the said occurrence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the F.I.R. The motive was not ascribed to the petitioner, that no specific role had been assigned to him; that the petitioner did not repeat the fire that no independent overt act had been attributed to the petitioner; that the location of the injuries being on the legs show that the intention of the petitioner and the co-accused was not to kill the complainant; that in the Medico-legal Report the doctor had declared the injuries under section 337-E and 337-C, P.P.C. Which were punishable with maximum sentences of seven years and three years respectively. The same did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that it was a daylight occurrence and there was no question of mistake identity; that the petitioner had been nominated in the F.I.R. And specific role of firing with his .30 bore (sic) him; that even if the offences fell within the ambit of sections 337-E and 337-C, P.P.C. The same were not bailable; that the eye- witnesses of the F.I.R. Had fully supported the prosecution case before the police and in the investigation, the police had found the petitioner guilty and that the recovery of .30 bore pistol had been effected from the accused/ petitioner.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The injured complainant was shot by the petitioner and his co-accused on both legs and the injuries ascribed to the petitioner and his absconding co-accused were declared to be fire-arm injuries by the Medical Officer. The final result of the injuries on the basis of X-rays shows shattering of the Tibia. Section 324, P.P.C. Has not been deleted as such the offences fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The eye-witnesses namely Ghani and Aftab while appearing before the police fully supported the case of prosecution. After a thorough investigation the police found the petitioner fully involved in the case. Further, recovery of .30 bore pistol has also been affected from the petitioner. The F.I.R. Was promptly lodged and it was a daylight occurrence. The occurrence took place on 26-8-2004 whereas the petitioner was arrested on 17-10-2005 which shows that he was an absconder for more than a year. The co-accused of the petitioner is still at large. The police record reveals that the petitioner is a record-holder inasmuch as five F.I.Rs, under various sections of the P.P.C. Stand registered against him. This fact is sufficient to show that the petitioner is a habitual offender and involved in serious and heinous offences.
7. Tentative assessm ent of the evidence on the record shows that there is ample evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Resultantly, this petition being without merit is dismissed.