ORDER MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 70. Dated 6.4.2006 under Sections 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. Police Station City. Vehari.
2. Per contents of the F.I.R. The petitioner armed with pistol alongwith co-accused while forming unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common Intention launched attack on the complainant and his companions and petitioner made a pistol fire hitting left thigh of Aftab injured.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is behind the bars since 14.4.2006 and despite completion of investigation and submission of challan the trial has not yet commenced; that there is no allegation of repetition of shot and second injury caused to the injured is attributed to Muhammad Asghar; that Abdullah one of the co-accused though fired pistol shot on Kashif whose case stands on same footing, nowever, has been allowed bail by the Trial Court oh the ground of compromise therefore, case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry with regard to his guilty intention and that though offence under Section -324, P.P.C. Is punishable with a sentence of ten years but the quantum of sentence can only be determined after recording of evidence, therefore, petitioner is entitle to post-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail application by arguing that as a result of the injury caused to Aftab injured he has been rendered crippled, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to bail. So for as case of Abdullah co-accused is concerned, learned counsel for the complainant submits that Kashif injured in his own wisdom opted to compromise with him, therefore, no concession can be extended to the petitioner. Lastly, that offence Under Section 324, P.P.C. Falls within prohibitory clause; therefore, in the absence of any special circumstance, the petitioner cannot be released on bail.
5. Arguments considered. Record perused.
6. From bare perusal of the F.I.R. It is clear that only one injury is attributed to the petitioner and there is no allegation of its repetition. The extent of period of sentence under Section 324, P.P.C.
Depends upon the findings of the Trial Court after recording of evidence. Although, decision of bail of Abdullah co-accused on the ground of compromise has not binding effect yet the fact remains that if an injured with his consent compromises with an accused, the other accused standing on the same footing such like the petitioner, can be extended the concession because ultimately the possibility of compromise between the petitioner and his victim Aftab can also be not ruled out.
Although offence under Section 324, P.P.C. Is punishable. With ten years but the quantum of- sentence can only be determined after recording of evidence and keeping the petitioner behind bars till the conclusion of the trial would be nothing but punishing him without trial. Resultantly, this bail application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to postarrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bound in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.