' M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- Muhammad Naeem alias Bhola son of Khurshid Ahmed, the petitioner, seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,232 of 2005, dated 2-12-2005, registered at Police Station Shah Gharib District Narowal, for an offence under section 324/34, P.P.C. Whereas section 109, P.P.C. Had been added subsequently.
2. The case of the prosecution as it unfolded in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of M. Aasim son of Muhammad Ali, the complainant, was that on 2-12-2005 at 11-30 a.m. He along with Ehsanul-Haq son of Mian Muhammad Baqir, Nasir Mehmood son of Muhammad Sharif were proceeding towards the office of Union Council; when they were close to the said office, one Nadim and an unknown person, both of whom were armed with pistols, while riding on a motorcycle, suddenly appeared; Nadim fired a pistol shot at him which hit on his leg and went through and through; the unknown person also fired shots, however, the bullets did not cause any bodily injury but hit the clothes; the complainant also took out his pistol and fired in his defence causing the assailants to run away.
Apart from him the incident had been witnesses by his companions.
' The motive behind the occurrence was previous litigation and enmity between the parties.
Resultantly the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. The petitioner applied for his pre-arrest bail which application had been turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal vide order, dated 6-1-2006. Hence this petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record brought by Muhammad Baqir, S.-I. Police Station Shah Gharib, District Narowal.
5. It has been observed that the name of the petitioner did not A feature in the F.I.R. And that it cropped up for the first time in the supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant on 4-12-2005 i,e, two days after the occurrence. In the said supplementary statement the complainant had stated that the unknown person had been identified to be one Allah Rakha son of Muhammad Ashiq. The complainant had also stated that the incident had taken place at the instance of the present petitioner. The witnesses of abetment namely Muhammad Munir son of Muhammad Latif and Waris Ali son of Muhammad Aslam had been examined on 13-12-2005 i,e, eleven days after the occurrence. They had stated in their statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. That a few days before the occurrence while passing through the Bazar they had overheard the present petitioner exhorting his brother to do away with the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that there was no malice involved because as soon as the complainant found out the details about the incident he made a supplementary statement. He also stated that a number of F.I.Rs, exist wherein attempts were made on the life of the complainant and the petitioner had been involved in the said attempts. I am not inclined to go into the details of the case lest it prejudices the case of either of the sides. Suffice it to say that there is no escape from the factual position that the petitioner had been involved only on the basis of a supplementary statement and that too which had been recorded two days after the occurrence. The witnesses of abetment were also recorded eleven days after the occurrence. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners in terms of this Courts' order, dated 16-1-2006 is hereby confirmed.
7. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and are not designed to influence the merits of the case.