' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.--- Petitioner Azhar Waheed through the instant petition has sought for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. Nc.74 registered under sections 393 and 324, P.P.C. With Police Station Gulgasht, Multan on 28-2-2008.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that on 28-2-2008 at about 12-10 p.m. Three unknown persons have intercepted the complainant at some distance from city hospital near the graveyard and they asked him to handover to them his motorcycle and on his resistance, one of them, fired straight on his left leg and the other on his right foot. On the attraction of the witnesses, they fled away from the scene, while firing in the air.
3. It has been argued on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that he has nothing to do with the alleged offence; that he has no concern with his co-accused; that he was put to identification test about one year and three months after the alleged incident and such belated parade, thus, carries no value in the eyes of law and in support of the same, he has placed reliance upon the case of Mehr alias Fazal Muhammad and 2 others v. The State 1978 PCr.LJ 176 (Karachi), that nothing has been recovered from him during the investigation, that no injury of the complainant is ascribed to him and so, his case is open to further inquiry into his guilt; that he is behind the bars for the last about six months; that he is not a previous convict; and that his trial as yet has not commenced.
4. On the other hand learned D.P.-G. Has opposed the petition on the ground that he was picked up in the identification test although nothing has been recovered from him and so is sufficiently connected with the crime.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the record.
6. The fact remain that he is not named in the F.I.R. He, though was put to identification test on 11-5- 2009 but this apparently was about one year and three months after the alleged incident. In the afore referred case, the accused, who was picked up in the identification test after eighteen days of the occurrence and no blood stained weapon was recovered from him, was allowed bail.
7. The fact also remains that no recovery of any kind was effected from him. It is the own case of the prosecution that none of the injuries of the complainant is ascribable to him. In these circumstances, I am of the view that his case is open to further inquiry into his guilt. His case, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C.
8. He is behind the bars for the last more than six months and as yet his trial admittedly has not commenced. In these circumstances, I find that case for his enlargement on bail has been made out.
9. In this view of the matter, I accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in he sum of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
10. However, I may observe here that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the matter in hand. These shall have no bearing at all on anybody's case at trial.