ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J. - Through this petition Muhammad Ejaz petitioner has sought post- arrest bail in the cross-version of case FIR No. 90 registered at Police Station, Chakrala, District Mianwali on 12.12.2004 in respect of offences under sections 148/302/324/149, P.P.C, and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The said cross-version had been registered on 17.12.2004 in respect of offences under sections 324/440/337-A(i)/337- A(ii)/341/336/148/149/109, P.P.C, and section 7 of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 19977
2. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the present petition is that the case against the present petitioner is similar to that against Sher Baz accused mentioned in the FIR as the said co-accused had also been attributed a fire-arm injury on the person of a prosecution witness, and he has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2005 passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8757-B of 2005. We have gone through the order dated 20.12.2005 passed by us in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8757-B of 2005 and have noticed that Sher Baz accused had been admitted to bail by us on the ground that he had not been nominated in the FIR and his name had been introduced through a supplementary statement, It appears that we had not been properly assisted on the said occasion and it had been maintained before us that Sher Baz accused had not caused any injury to the deceased or to any prosecution witness whereas we now appreciate that according to the supplementary statement made by the complainant the said Sher Baz accused had been attributed a fire-arm injury on the ankle of Ahmad Gul PW. It is true that the petitioner has also not been attributed any injury to the deceased and the allegation levelled against the petitioner is also in respect of-causing a fire-arm injury to a prosecution witness namely Sher Ahmad but despite that apparent similarity between the case of Sher Baz accused and the present petitioner we have found a striking dissimilarity viz-a-viz the case against the said accused person and the petitioner and that is that the injury caused by Sher Baz accused to Ahmad Gul PW was on the ankle the said prosecution witness which prima facie appears to be an injury caused by a single pellet whereas the role attributed to the petitioner is that of causing a fire-arm injury on the mouth of Sher Ahmad PW. We have gone the medico-legal certificate issued in respect of Sher PW and have found that the shot allegedly fired by the petitioner at the mouth of Sher Ahmad PW had caused serious injuries on the face and in the mouth of the said prosecution witness. Giving such a fire-arm injury to the victim on his face apparently depicts an intention to kill on the part of the petitioner whereas prima facie the cannot be said with any degree of certainty at this stage-viz the role attributed to Sher- Baz accused.
3. It may be pertinent to mention here that the petition in hand happens to be the second petition filed by the petitioner before this Court seeking the same relief in the self-same criminal case. His first petition (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8833-B of 2005) had been dimissed by us as having been withdrawn on 20.12.2005 after the learned caunsel fot the petitoner had addressed elaborate atfuments in support of the said petition but had remained unaboe to convince us regarding the petitioner's bail. THe cuircumstances of this case have not undergone any metrail change viz-a-viz the petitioner during the interregnum. The only difference this time is that the learned counsel representing the petitoner id different. THis is hardly a fesh ground for admitting the petioner to bail in the same cirminal case withe a span of about two months of dismissal of his earlier petiton by us.
4. For what has been discussed above prima facie reasonable grounds exit to believe in the petitioners's involvement in the alleged offences and this petition is therefore, dismissed.