' SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioner Raham Hussain through the instant petition has sought post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,321 of 2007, dated 16-9-2007 registered under sections 324/34/ 148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Fazil Pur, District Rajanpur.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he while armed with .12-bore gun along with other co-accused who were also armed with deadly weapons in furtherance of their common intention and object launched a murderous assault upon the complainant and the petitioner made a fire shot with his gun which hit the complainant on his right knee. The petitioner's post-arrest bail petitions were dismissed by the Illaqa Magistrate as well as by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur. Hence, this petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and that the fire-shot attributed to the petitioner is on non-vital part of the body of the complainant which shows that the petitioner was not intended to kill the complainant and in this way offence under section 324, P.P.C. Does not attract in this case. Further submits that a wider net has been thrown to involve all the family members of the petitioner and false implication of the petitioner in this case cannot be ruled out as the complainant in his supplementary statement has involved two more persons. Further adds that previous enmity is admitted as civil litigation is pending between the parties. Learned counsel maintains that investigation is complete and the petitioner, is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation.
4. Conversely, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the instant petition by submitting that the petitioner is nominated accused in the F.I.R. With a specific role of causing injury to the complainant. Further adds that motive is also attributed to the petitioner and the P.Ws.
Are still supporting the prosecution version. Lastly submits that the offence falls under the prohibitory clause, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of bail.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Although the petitioner is nominated in' the F.I.R. With a specific role but according to the F.I.R.
And supplementary statement made by the complainant, five persons fired upon the complainant as a result of which he received only one pellet injury that too on non-vital part of the body i.e, right knee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the intention of the petitioner and applicability of section 324, P.P.C. Requires further probe as the complainant/injured P.Ws, was at the mercy of the petitioner and his co-accused who let off him alive after inflicting sole injury. Admittedly, the petitioner has not repeated the fire-shot. In view of the above, the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt. He is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation and his further detention would not serve any useful purpose.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.