' SAID MAROOF KHAN, J.--- The accused-petitioner Muhammad Ali is involved in a case under section 324/34, P.P.C. Which was registered against him and his co-accused on the report of Bahadur Khan complainant-respondent vide F.I.R. No,281 dated 10-8-2006 at Police Station Tajori, District Lakki Marwat. After having failed to get bail from the Courts below he has moved this Court for his release on bail.
2. The allegation against the accused-petitioner is that on 10-8-2006 at 3-00 a.m., on the limits of village Kumbaran Police Station Tajori, he along with his brother Muhammad Nawaz had fired at the complainant and his brother Akhtar Ali with kalashnikovs as a result whereof the complainant- respondent was hit and injured. The motive for the offence was stated to be previous blood-feud.
3. Mr. Gauhar Zaman Kundi the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was a night occurrence and that the identification of assailants was not possible. It was further submitted that the offence appears to have been committed by the one person but the complainant party had falsely charged two persons including the petitioner without specifically mentioning as to which one of them was responsible for causing the injuries to the complainant and that the above facts make the case one of further inquiry entitling the petitioner to the concession of bail.
4. On the contrary Muhammad Yaqoob Marwat the learned counsel for the complainant- respondent and Chaudhary Muhammad Sharif learned D.A.-G. Representing the State resisted the bail petition and contended that the petitioner is charged in the F.I.R. For effective firing at the complainant; that the parties having previous blood feud were known to each other and that the complainant and his brother had properly identified the accused-petitioner and his co-accused at the time of occurrence by their voice and in the moon-light.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
6. The mere fact that the allegations were general in nature as the injuries were not specifically attributed to either of the two accused would hot make the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry. The record reveals that besides the complainant his brother Akhtar Ali Khan is stated to be The eye-witness of the occurrence and he has charged the petitioner and his co-accused for effective firing at the complainant in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. He has further alleged that he identified the accused-petitioner and his co-accused in the moon-light and also by their voice: The complainant also charged the accused-petitioner and his co-accused for effective firing at him. During spot inspection the Investigating Officer recovered 8 empties of 7.62 bore. The circumstantial evidence in the shape of recovery of empties from the spot as well as the medical evidence support the prosecution version. The evidence presently existing on the record prima facie connects the accused-petitioner with the crime in question which falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to the concession of bail and as such his bail petition is dismissed.