' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Javed Akhtar petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 56, dated 10-3-2008 registered under section 324/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Sarai Muhajer District Bhakkar on the application of Tahir Ahmad.
2. The brief allegation in the F.I.R. Is that the petitioner Javed Akhtar armed with .30 bore pistol, Muhammad Asad empty-handed, Muhammad Amjad armed with .30 bore pistol and Rizwan Ali empty-handed intercepted the complainant party and they raised a lalkai a for teaching a lesson of the quarrel. Then Muhammad Javed petitioner caused fire-arm injury to Muhammad Nadeem on his right shoulder.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been involved in this case falsely on account of enmity with the complainant party; that during investigation the petitioner produced at least 50 persons before the DPO in the first investigation in his defence and also offered oath regarding his innocence but the complainant refused to take oath. I.O. On the said occasion before the DPO gave his opinion that he has produced 50 persons in his defence and also offered oath but the complainant has refused to take oath regarding his innocence and keeping in view the statement of the above-said 50 persons the first Investigating Officer gave his opinion that apparently case against the petitioner was false. The petitioner was arrested on 21-6-2008 and since then he is in the judicial lock-up and is not required for the purpose of ninvestigation.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner keeping in view the above-said situation he is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Learned DPG on the other hand opposes this petition on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With specific role of causing injury to Muhammad Nadeem injured which is supported by the medical evidence and in such like circumstances the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail.
5. Perusal of the record shows that although the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With specific role but during investigation he produced a large number of persons in support of his innocence and relying on the statements of the said persons the first Investigating Officer positively opined that the case against the petitioner was false. The investigation was then transferred to the second I.O.
Who opined that the petitioner was guilty. It is also clear from the police record that the oath was also A offered by the petitioner in the presence of DPO Bhakkar but that was also not accepted by the complainant. As there is difference of opinions between the two I. Os, one in favour of the petitioner and the second in favour of the complainant, at this stage I find that the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of further inquiry. Hence this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.