TARIQ SHAMIM, J.-Through this petition, the petitioners seek "bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.Lll of 2006, dated 4-3-2006 for offences under sections 324/ 452/109/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Jahanian, District Khanewal.
2.
3.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant on the day of occurrence went to the house of his brother namely Abid Hussain. On a knock on the door, Abid Hussain opened the door whereupon Safdar Abbas armed with .30 bore pistol, Ghulam Abbas armed with .30 bore pistol and Manzar Abbas armed with .222 rifle entered into the house and started beating Abid Hussain the brother of the complainant. The other P.Ws. Also reached the courtyard and on their arrival they saw Safdar Abbas petitioner No.l fired a shot A with his .30 bore pistol at Abid Hussain which hit on his right leg near the knee. The bullet went through and through his leg and fractured the bone. Manzar Abbas and Ghulam Abbas accused fired straight at complainant and Jamshed Haider but they were saved. The inhabitants of the locality were attracted to the place of occurrence, on whose arrival the accused fled away on a motorcycle.
4.
3.It was noticed that the petitioner Ghulam Abbas is not present in Court hence to his extent the order granting prearrest bail dated 8-4-2006 is recalled. Insofar as petitioner No. 3 Mehboob Hussain Shah is concerned, the counsel for the complainant as well as the learned State counsel do not oppose his bail as he is an accused of abatement only and is an old man who was not even present at the place of occurrence. Hence, to his extent the bail already granted to him vide order dated 8-4-2006 is confirmed.
4.So far as the petitioners Safdar Abbas and Manzar Abbas are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that only one injury was caused on the person of Abid Hussain and that too on a non-vital part of his body as such, the case of the petitioners was one of further inquiry; that the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. Were not attracted to the case as petitioner No.l did not repeat the fire which showed that he had no intention to murder Abid Hussain; that the petitioners had been falsely involved by the complainant on account of litigation pending between the parties regarding dispute over land and that petitioner No.2 although shown to be armed with .222 rifle did not cause any injury to any P.Ws. Hence the petitioners were entitled to the concession of pre- arrest bail.
5, On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioners were named in the F.I.R. And specific role had been attributed to them; that eye-witness account was supported by medical evidence which showed that a serious injury had been caused on the person of Abid Hussain by petitioner No.l; that offence under section 324, P.P.C. Fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And that' section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. Which was subsequently added was punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years and being non-bailable, the petitioners were not entitled to die concession of pre- arrest bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Safdar Abbas petitioner No.l while armed with .30 bore pistol fired a shot at Abid Hussain which went through his leg and fractured right distal femur and right proximal tibia. The ocular account is fully supported by the medical evidence hence provision of section 324, P.P.C. Is fully attracted to the case of the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel that petitioner No. 1 did not repeat the fire hence intention to commit murder was not present is misconceived as in view of the locale of the injury and the extent of damage caused the intention to kill can be safely inferred. The weapon of offence has yet to be recovered by the police. Since the offence under section 324, P.P.C.
Falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. As such, the petitioner Safdar Abbas is not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. It would not be out of place to mention here that previously also the said Abid Hussain was injured by the petitioner and the others for which case F.I.R. No.399 of 1998 was registered. Insofar as Manzar Abbas petitioner No.2 is concerned, although he is stated to be present at the place of occurrence the only overt act attributed to him is that of firing at the P.Ws. And since he has not caused any injury to any P,W. As such, the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. Would not be attracted to his case. Admittedly, there is longstanding enmity between the parties on account of pending litigation and the false involvement of petitioner No. 2 on account thereof cannot be ruled out.
8.In view of what has been discussed above, the bail petition to the extent of Safdar Abbas petitioner No.l is dismissed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to him vide order dated 18- 4-2006 is withdrawn. So far as Manzar Abbas petitioner No.2 is concerned, the ad interim pre-atrest bail granted to him vide the afore-mentioned order is confirmed.