The petitioners seek bail after arrest in case FIR No,315 of 2009 dated 01.06.2009 under Sections 324, 337F-5, 148, 149, 34 PPC registered at Police Station Khurianwala, District Faisalabad on the complaint of Muhammad Naeem Sarwar.
2. Precisely, the complainant has alleged in the FIR that Samar Abbas alia Ali armed with repeater gun, Kashif alias Kasha armed with pistol .30 bore, Pervez alias Peja armed with carbine, Asif armed with rifle .222 bore and Azam alias Kazam armed with rife .244 bore attacked the complainant party at about Mughrab prayer wela on 31.05.2009; the accused Kashaf fired with his pistol which landed on left calf of Ghulam Mustafa, brother of the complainant, Pervez fired with his carbine which landed on the right foot of injured Ghulam Mustafa, Samar Abbas fired with his repeater gun which landed on right foot of the said injured who got badly wounded due to firing of the accused; the accused Asif and Azam kept on raising Lalkaras and made aerial firing. The motive behind the occurrence was that a quarrel had taken place between the accused and the injured a day earlier.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Samar Abbas accused has been admitted to post arrest bail and the case of the petitioner is at par with him so on the plea of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief; that the prosecution case has been found false to the extent of all the co-accused of the petitioner during the course of investigation; that solitary shot is attributed to the petitioner and that too on non-vital part of the body; that the injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature; that the petitioner has not allegedly repeated the act of firing; that offence under Section 324 PPC is not made out as the Medical Officer had found the injured, stable at the time of his medical examination; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about 5 months and he is no more required for the purpose of further investigation. Relies upon case titled Muhammad Umar Vs. The State and another (PLD 2004 SC Page 477).
4. Learned Addl: Prosecutor General, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR with a particular role and the medical evidence corroborates the said role; that the petitioner abscondeded after the registration of the case and was arrested after the about six months; that the learned Prosecutor, however, admitted that no proceedings under Section 87 Cr.P.0 were carried out against the accused-petitioner; that the petitioner led to the recovery of a pistol on 20.11.2009 during the course of investigation; that Section 324 PPC is applicable in this case as a fire-arm has been used in the occurrence; that the challan has been submitted in the learned trial Court and there is likelihood of commencement of the trial soon.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner though specifically alleged to have caused a fire-arm injury on the calf of the injured yet, the injury has not been found grievous in nature. It has not been alleged against the petitioner that he repeated the act of firing at the time of occurrence. The locale of injury is non- vital part of the body. The injured apparently, was at the mercy of the petitioner and his co- accused, being empty handed, yet, the petitioner refrained from repeating the act of firing which reflects upon application of Section 324 PPC. It appears that the petitioner had no intention to fire upon any vital part of the injured witness for the purpose of launching murderous assault. Challan though, submitted in the court, the trial has not commenced so far. The accused is behind the bars, since the date of his arrest and was no more required for the purpose of further investigation. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused in custody any longer. The application of Section 324 PPC shall be gone into only during the course of the trial after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Prima-facie, the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry as envisaged under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. aforementioned. The luminous judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan provides guidance for admitting the petitioner to post arrest bail.
7. For the forgoing reasons, I allow this petition and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Courts.