' M. BILAL KHAN, J.- Muhammad Arshad alias Achhoo son of Akbar Ali, petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.646 of 2005 dated 14-12-2005, registered with Police Station Sabzazar, Lahore for an offence under section 324/34, P.P.C.
2. The case of the complainant Khurram Shahzad son Of Peer Muhammad, .As narrated in the F.I.R., was that he was a resident of Awan Town, Multan Road, Lahore; on 14-12-2005 at 7-30 p.m he left Khurram Block, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore in a wagon and reached Multan Chungi from where he boarded Wagon No.9 and got down at Kakkay Zai stop; while he was passing in front of a firewood stack when two boys riding a motorcycle came in front of him; one of them was Muhammad Arshad son of Haji Akbar Ali, resident of Awan Town (petitioner), whereas the other body could be identified if brought before him; initially both of them started aerial firing whereafter Muhammad Arshad fired straight at him which landed at his left thigh; second shot was made by his unknown companion which hit him on the right calf causing him to fall down in injured condition; apart from the complainaiit, the incident was witnessed by his brother Khadim Hussain and his friend Muhammad Rehman resident of Shad Baigh, Lahore; on noise raised by them many people gathered there whereafter both the assailants fled from the scene while firing. Resultantly the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. The petitioner's application for post-arrest bail had been turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge* Lahore vide order dated 7-4-2007. Hence the instant petition.
4. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Shan Gul, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Mazhar Sher Awan, the learned Additional Prosecutor- General Punjab, for the State , as also Major (Retd.) Aftab Ahmed Khan, Advocate the learned counsel for the complainant.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the F.I.R. Is false and that the events mentioned therein do not synchronize with the medico-legal report. According to him it was well night impossible for the injured to have presented himself for medical .Examination at 8-02 p.m., if the event and its timing as mentioned in the F.I.R. Is presumed to be correct. Apart from that he argued that the allegation in the F.I.R. Is quite vague, in that it is not mentioned therein as to what kind of weapon the motorcycle riders were armed with. He also argued that if the prosecution story is presumed to be true even then applicability of section 324, P.P.C. Is not made out as both the fire shots allegedly suffered by the complainant/injured were received on non-vital parts of his body i.e. On the left thigh and right calf. Insofar as the abscondence of the petitioner is concerned, he argued that the petitioner had disappeared on account of the fear of his false involvement and arrest.
6. On the other hand Major (Retd.) Aftab Ahmad Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that it was a promptly lodged F.I.R.; that he had allegedly effectively used his fire-arm and that as the challan has been submitted in the Court, there is no occasion to grant him bail.
7. The learned Law Officer supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and submitted that as the challan has been submitted, this Court may refrain from granting bail at this stage.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it has been observed that as per allegation of the prosecution, both the assailants were armed with fire-arms but none of them had repeated his fire, although of his own showing the complainant was at tjieir complete mercy. Apart from that the assailants had ensured that they did not cause any damage on the vital part of the victim's body and had confined themselves to hitting him on the thigh and calf which prima facie shows lack of intention on their part to cause Qatl-i- Amd. It is surprising that although the case had been registered on 14-12-2005 yet till today the injuries allegedly suffered by the complainant have not been finally got determined and the challan has been submitted only under section 324/34, P.P.C.
In the case of Asghar Ali v. The State (1997 PCr.LJ 1306) which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, injured prosecution witness had suffered nine pellet injuries on his legs and thighs as a result of two shots fired by accused and co-accused from a Close range. Bail was allowed to the accused by holding that neither the accused had repeated the fire nor injuries sustained by the injured witness were caused on any vital part of body, meaning thereby, there was no intention'to cause death of the said person and applicability of section 324, P.P.C. Required further inquiry. In the given facts and circumstances of the case the intention of the petitioner to kill needs to be determined at the trial and nothing is available on record to show that he had acted in an unusual, cruel or highhanded manner. Insofar as the abscondence of the petitioner is concerned, it has time and again been observed by the Honourable apex Court that mere abscondence of accused can never remedy the defects in the prosecution case as neither it is necessarily indicative of guilt, nor is it ever sufficient by itself to prove the guilt. Reference can also profitably be made to Muhammad Khan and another v. The State (1999 SCM R 1220) and The State v. Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Awan (1991 SCM R 322). In view of what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry within* the contemplation of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
9. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail provided he furnished bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.