' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.---The petitioner, Sadullah son of Ghulam Haider, seeks his release on bail in case F.I.R. No,247 dated 31-10-2007 registered under section 324, P.P.C. In Police Station Paharpur D.I. Khan, as he has remained unsuccessful to get the concession of bail from the learned two Courts below vide orders dated 4-3-2008 and 17-3-2008 respectively.
2. The prosecution case as reflected in the F.I.R. Lodged by the complainant Rahmatullah in emergency room of Civil Hospital Paharpur on 31-10-2007 at 1320 hours in that on the fateful day he along with his brother Aslam was present in his house when its door was knocked whereupon they both came out of the house and found Sadullah son of Ghulam Haider present there. On inquiry by the accused from Aslam Khan that why his children were beaten by his children, the brother of the complainant replied that he did not know about the quarrel between the children due to which the accused became angry and by taking out pistol from the trouser fold effectively fired at the complainant with which he was hit on back side, whereafter the accused decamped from the spot.
Besides the complainant and his brother Aslam Khan, the occurrence was stated to have been witnessed by Qayyum son of Haqnawaz, their co-villager. Motive for the occurrence was due to the quarrel between the children.
3. Mr. Muhammad Waheed Anjum, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that in the given facts and circumstances, the prosecution story is unbelievable; that the medical evidence is not in line with the ocular account furnished by the complainant; that the accusations are not supported by the site plan; that neither any empty has been recovered from the place of occurrence nor any blood therefrom; that the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. Are not attracted to the facts of the case in hand; that the punishment provided under the law for the offence is likely to fall under section 337, P.P.C. Which alone would entitle the accused/petitioner to the concession of bail; that civil and criminal cases are pending between the parties and thus the complainant has falsely involved the accused in the instant crime; that investigation in the case is complete and the accused is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Reliance in this respect was placed on the judgment reported as Jan Muhammad v. Noor Jamal and others (1998 SCM R 500); Muhammad Shafique v. The State (2007 M LD 736); Aurangzeb v. The State and others (1999 PCr.LJ 230); Waris and others v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 642); Moulvi Nazar Muhammad v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 1174) and Noor-ur-Rehman v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 1603).
4. Mr. Muhammad Karim Anjum Qasuria, learned counsel for the complainant while supporting the impugned order and opposing the grant of bail to the accused/petitioner has contended that it is a case of single accused and the accused/ petitioner has been directly charged by the complainant for effectively firing at him; he has remained fugitive from law for a noticeable and unexplained period of about 35/36 days after committing the crime on 31-10-2007, the site plan and medical report of the victim fully support the prosecution's case backed by a motive and the case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In support of the contentions, reliance was placed on the case-law reported as Muhammad Rafique alias Titai v. The State (PLD 1974 Supreme Court 65); Muhammad Iqbal v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 1826); Ali Qadar v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 516); Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (1999 M LD 1526); Khair Muhammad alias Khairoo v. The State (2003 M LD 1789); Nazir Ahmad v. The State and Muhammad Yousaf 2002 PCr.LJ 149; Fayyaz Ahmad v. The State (1989 PCr.LJ 784); Arshad v. The State and another 1996 SCM R 1270; Wajahat Ikram and another v. The State and another (1999 SCM R 1255); Siraj and another v. The State and another (2000 PCr.LJ 1220); Ghulam Rabbani v. The State and Abdul Baqi (2000 YLR 1580); Wahid v.
The State (PLD 2002 SC 62), Abdul Majid alias Fauji and another v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 1914); Faizullah Khan and others v. The State (1999 M LD 666) and Zar Gulab and 6 others v. The State and others (2003 PCr.LJ 1404).
5. Mr. Farooq Akhiar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has seriously opposed the grant of bail to the accused/petitioner on almost the same grounds agitated by the learned counsel for the complainant.
6. I have anxiously considered the valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of available record.
7. The contention of the lean counsel for the petitioner that the injury not on vital part of the body and intention of the accused/petitioner was to kill the complainant's brother and offence, after all, if any, committed by accused/petitioner will come under provisions of section 337 P.P.C., is with substance. The accused/petitioner directly charged for effectively firing Aslam, brother of the complainant on back. The fact that the injury was not the vital and sensitive part of the be would not, as such, bring the case of petitioner outside the embargo laid urn section 497, Cr.P.C. As held in the case Muhammad Rafique v. The State repor in 2008 SCM R 678.
8. Admittedly, the accused/petitioner is directly charged by the complainant for B effectively firing and injuring him in a broad-daylight and the report is lodged with all reasonable promptitude. It is a single accused case and the victim has sustained a single injury on vital part of his body. The charge is duly supported by a motive of quarrel between children of the parties and eye-witnesses.
The accused/petitioner has remained in abscondence for a sufficiently long and unexplained noticeable period B after the occurrence with no plausible explanation. The medical examination of the victim and site plan prepared in the case also support the prosecution case. Therefore, tentative assessm ent of the material so far brought on record prima facie, reasonably links the accused/ petitioner with an offence falling within the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C. Which disentitles him to the concession of bail.
9. Consequently in view of the dictum laid down in the cases of Muhammad Rafique alias Titai v.
The State PLD 1974 Supreme Court 65 and Wajahat Ikram and C another v. The State and another 1999 SCM R 1255, I find no merit in this bail application which is dismissed accordingly.