' ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Shehzad through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Seeks his post arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,37 of 2007, dated 16-1-2007 under sections 324/34, 337-L (ii)/337-F(i), P.P.C., at Police Station Banni, Rawalpindi.
2. The relief of bail has been declined to the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi vide his order, dated 16-6-2008, hence this petition.
3. The allegation against the petitioner was that he while armed with a pistol inflicted injury on the person of the complainant which hit him on his left thigh and he fell down and in this position, his co-accused, Manzoor Ahmed inflicted three blows of ice needle (Suwa) to the complainant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the seat of the injury selected by the accused/petitioner and the fact that he did not repeat the fire shot which reflects that the petitioner had no intention to kill the complainant. Further contends that co-accused of the petitioner Manzoor Ahmed has been allowed bail by this Court vide order, dated 6-3-2008 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 173-B of 2008. Petitioner is behind the bars for a considerable period and is no more required for the purpose of further investigation, therefore, he is entitled to the facility of bail.
5. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General while appearing on behalf of the State contends that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With a specific role of causing fire-arm injury on the person of the complainant and therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Admittedly, the complainant had received the fire-arm injury on his left thigh. The seat of the injury selected by the accused-petitioner and the fact that he did not repeat the same reflects that he had no intention to kill the injured. In the case reported as Muhammad Afzal v. The State (2004 YLR 94) it has been held by this Court that: "the role attributed to accused had resulted into an injury on the left leg of injured and fire shots made by the co-accused had hit on right leg of injured---Seat of injury selected by the accused had reflected that he had no intention to kill the injured, otherwise if he had intended to kill the injured he could have hit his vital parts of body."
' In the case reported as Qurban Hussain v. The State (2004 YLR 13) it has been held by this Court that, "accused had allegedly inflicted injuries on non-vital parts of body of the victim and he was not required for any further investigation by the Police. Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances." In case reported as Muhamadm Yousaf alias Kalay Khan v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1862) while interpreting the provisions of section 324/34, P.P.C. This Court observed that:--- "Accused had only fired one shot hitting the victim on front of his thigh and did not repeat the same. Injury suffered by the victim fell within the purview of S.337-F(iii), P.P.C. Which was primarily punishable with "Daman" and also with imprisonment extending to three years as Tazir."
8. In the present case, the accused/petitioner has also fired one shot which hit the complainant on his left thigh which is a non-vital part of the body. The petitioner is behind the bars for a considerable period and is no more required for any further investigation. Therefore, without going deep into the merits of the case, by allowing this petition I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1-lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Judge.