' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Shehbaz son of lqbal, the petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in the case F.I.R.
No,624 of 2004, registered at Police Station Aroop, District Gujranwala for offences under sections 324/34, P.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution, as it unfolded in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Dilawar Hussain son of Saeed Muhammad, the complainant, was that on 28-11-2004 the petitioner and one Moeenud-Din ' alias Mitthu were making his son Irfan smoke a cigarette containing Charas; his son Ijaz saw this and reprimanded said Moeen-udDin and the petitioner whereupon both the said persons got infuriated and hurled abuses; they also declared that they would kill Ijaz; on 29-11-2004 at 1-00 p.m., Moeen-ud-Din alias Mitthu and the petitioner armed with pistol .30 bore and Muhammad Younas while armed with a Danda came to the shop of Muhammad Ijaz; Muhammad Younas and Shahbaz (petitioner) started raising lalkara that Ijaz be done to death whereupon Moeen-ud-Din fired 3-4 shots with his pistol aiming at Ijaz; one of the fire shots hit Ijaz on his right leg on the front side and went through and through Shahbaz brandished his pistol and did not allow the witnesses to come to his rescue; Younas beat up those with his stick, who came to intervene; the victim fell down on the ground; the alarm raised during the incident attracted Muhammad Yaqoob son of Said Muhammad and Tariq son of Manzoor, residents of Aroop who also witnessed the occurrence. The injured was removed to the hospital. Resultantly the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. The petitioner had been arrested on 30-3-2005 and is in custody ever since. His application for post-arrest bail had been turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala vide order dated 3-5-2005. Hence this petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. It has been observed that four investigations were held in this case, in the first three investigations, the petitioner had been declared to be innocent whereas in the fourth one the Investigating Officer/Inspector rendered an opinion of guilt against him. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The only role attributed to him was that while armed with a pistol he had flaunted the same but had not actually used it. It is yet to be seen as to what stopped the petitioner from using his weapon and restricted himself only to swinging the same in the air. As such his intention to commit murder and hence the applicability of section 324, P.P.C. Needs further probe within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is in custody for the last almost ten months and the trial has yet not commenced. He cannot be retained in custody as a measure of punishment.
6. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.