' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.--- Through this petition, petitioner Ghulam Hussain son of Muhammad Yar seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,214 of 2009 dated 20-6-2009 registered at Police Station Machiwal, District Vehari, under sections 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. And 13/20/65, A.O. At the instance of Ghulam Ali son of Falak Sher, complainant, respondent No,2.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20-6-2009 the accused/petitioner along with others injured the complainant by causing "Butt" blow on his back and by making firing upon the complainant. Hence, this F.I.R.
3. Petitioner applied for post-arrest before the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Vehari, who vide order dated 4-7-2009 dismissed the same. Then petitioner moved his post-arrest bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, who vide order dated 16-10-2009 also refused to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery of any sort of weapon of offence was made from the petitioner, previous enmity exists between the parties as the complainant earlier had lodged F.I.R. No,184 of 2009 dated 2-6-2009 under sections 337-A(iii), 337-F(ii), 337-A(i)/34, P.P.C. Against the petitioner, so, possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out; no injury was caused on the person of the complainant, neither any medical has been obtained from the doctor, according to the same, offence under section 324, P.P.C. Is not made out; only ineffective firing is attributed to the petitioner; that no crime empty was recovered from the spot by the Investigating Officer, which makes the case doubtful and one of further inquiry; petitioner is no more required by the police for the purpose of recovery and investigation; that petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and his further incarceration in the jail will serve no useful purpose; petitioner is previously non-convict and non-record holder, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is a promptly lodged F.I.R; petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role; challan has been submitted on 30-9-2009; petitioner was found guilty in the investigation and four cases have already got registered against him, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. In this occurrence no person was injured only ineffective firing is attributed to the petitioner and other co-accused. No empty was recovered from the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in those F.I.Rs, which the D.D.P.P. Referred against the petitioner, compromise has been effected and were cancelled although got registered against him, no body was injured.
No MLC is obtained by the complainant, not appended with the police file. In view of above discussion, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry, which needs further investigation into the guilt of the petitioner under section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest 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 learned trial Court. However, observations made above are tentative in nature, will not prejudice the case of either side during the trial.