' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Through this application Attique-urRehman petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.265 of 2008, dated 30-8-2005 registered at Police Station Ladhaywala Warraich. District Gujranwala, in respect of the offences under sections 337-F(iii)/337- A(i)/336/34. P.P.C.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner as per the F.I.R., is that of causing five repeated dagger blows to the complainant which landed on different parts of his body.
3. In support of this learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been involved in this case mala fidely, that the petitioner has been languishing in jail for the last one year; that the challan has not been submitted before the learned trial Court as yet that there is delay of 13 days in lodging the F.I.R. And that Muhammad Asif co-accused has already been allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail on the basis of rule of consistency.
4. Conversely learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application vigorously, contending that the challan in this case has already been submitted and after framing of charge statements of two prosecution witnesses have also been recorded by the learned trial Court. In support of his contention learned counsel for the complainant has produced certified copy of the evidence sheet of the learned trial Court.
5. After hearing the respective learned counsel for the parties, I have gathered that there is a serious allegation against the petitioner of causing five stab wounds to the injured P.W. With a dagger. Most of the injuires were caused by him on the vital organs of the injured P.W. Further one of the injury caused by the petitioner attracts the provisions of section 336, P.P.C., which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The prosecution story prima facie, is corroborated by the statement of the injured P.W. As well as the medical evidence. Therefore, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is guilty of an offence which falls within the prohibitory clause. Besides, after framing of charge the trial has already commenced and statements of two prosecution witnesses have already been recorded by the learned trial Court. Therefore. At this stage deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be resorted to.
6. Consequently the application in hand stands dismissed.