' MUHAMMAD SAFDAR KHAN SIKANDRI, J.---Having failed to get the concession of bail from the Courts below, the petitioner Karam Ellahi has now come up to this Court for securing his bail in case F.I.R. No, 136 dated 21-5-2010 registered under sections 324/34 P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar, D.I. Khan.
2. The allegations against the petitioners are that on 21-5-2010 he along with his co-accused started .Firing at complainant Muhammad Yaqoob with which he was injured.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the occurrence has taken place at night, therefore, the identity of the accused is doubtful and there is unexplained delay of about 1 1/2 hours in lodging the report. He further contended that the medical evidence does not support the time of occurrence as well as nature of injury. It was further urged that the petitioner is a Govt. Servant and, he did not repeat the fire which shows that he had no intention to kill the complainant. He further urged that at the most the injury sustained by the complainant falls under section 337-f which is punishable up to five years and does not come within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on 2010 PCr.LJ 379 Lahore and 2008 SCM R 1621.
4. On the contrary, learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R. Which was lodged very promptly. He further contended that the version of complainant is not only supported by ocular evidence but also by the medical evidence. He further contended that there is no enmity between the complainant and the petitioner and the report of complainant fully constitutes the offence under section 324 P. P. C . , therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I gave my considered thought to the above arguments and gone through the materials on record minutely.
6. From the materials on record, it is evident that the occurrence has taken place at about 8-45 PM (night) in the light of bulb lit near the spot, therefore, the complainant was known to the accused petitioner and similarly, the accused petitioner was also known to the complainant but the question of firing at the victim is still shrouded in mystery as to why the accused fired at the complainant when he had no direct motive against the complainant for firing at him and this factum of the case will yet to be seen at the time of trial. The medical evidence available on record indicates that there is blackening near the seat of injuries on the thigh of the complainant but the site plan does not support the version of the victim as the distance between the assailant and the complainant is more than six feet and in case of firing with pistol, no blackening will occur from such a distance, therefore, this factum of the case will be scrutinized at the time of recording evidence and requires further probe. The Medico legal report available on the file shows that in column of name of relative or friend, only "by police" is written but from the F.I.R., it appears that at the time of occurrence, Qayyum and Shah Jehan, the brothers of Gulistan were present at the time of occurrence and in that case, if for example, the injured was taken to the hospital by his relatives, then their names would have been scribed by the doctor but non-appearance of the names of the relatives in the MLC will bring the case under the ambit of further inquiry. The accused-petitioner is a Govt. Servant as Lineman and voluntarily, surrendered before the police, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconsion or violating the terms and conditions of the bail nor he is a hardened criminal. It is worthy to mention that the accused petitioner has not repeated the volley of fires at the complainant most probably that he had no enmity with the complainant, therefore, the intention of the accused petitioner was not to kill the victim; otherwise, he would have been hit on the upper vital part of his body and this factum of the case requires further probe as to how this occurrence took place. Besides this, when there is no intention of killing the complainant by the accused petitioner, then naturally section 324 P.F.C. Will not be applicable and the only hurt caused coming under section 337-F(i)(ii) P.P.C. Being not punishable for more than five years will entitle the accused petitioner for bail. Reliance is placed on 2008 SCM R 1621.
7. In view of above facts and figures, I am constrained to hold that the case of the accused petitioner is arguable for the purpose of bail and without touching the other merits of the case, this petition is accepted and accused-petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one. Lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate.