'CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Ramzan through the instant petition has prayed for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,447 registered under sections 302, 324, P.P.C. With Police Station Daniw al , District Vehari on 24-11-2008.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that on 24-11-2008 at about 7-30 p.m. Muhammad Aslam, S.-I. Of the said Police Station, on noise along with other police officials reached Choudhary CNG Station and there he found Faisal alias Nika and others having firearms firing at Obaidur Rehman, while their companion Iftikhar was standing near a car and raising lalkara. The fires made by Faisal, Ramzan and Farid hit Obaidur Rehman on his legs and he was wounded. He in that condition made fires on them in reply and one bullet hit Faisal on the front side of his chest, who fell down. Obaidur Rehman snatched Mauser from Faisal and with the same, he fired at Muhammad Ramzan, who was also wounded and fell down. Farid alias Faridi on motorcycle and Iftikhar on car fled away. Faisal succumbed to his injuries at the spot, whereas Muhammad Ramzan and Obaidur Rehman were seriously wounded. Hence the case.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that in the F.I.R.
Petitioner Muhammad Ramzan along with his companions Faisal and Farid has been ascribed firing at Obaidur Rehman injured hitting on his legs. Firstly, no specific fire on the said injured has been attributed to him and secondly, the fires of three persons including his own self had hit Obaidur Rehman on his legs, which certainly were not the vital part of his body.
4. Anyway, leaving aside this aspect to be discussed anymore, I find that admittedly, it is a case of two versions. One is in the form of the instant F.I.R. And the other by way of case F.I.R. No,21 of 2008 of the said Police Station. It was registered on the statement of one Muhammad Saeed. The same admittedly is regarding that very occurrence was narrated in the instant F.I.R. Hence, this case is carrying another version as well. It is yet to be seen at trial that which the these two versions is correct or that who out of the parties was aggressor and who aggressed upon. In the case of Muhammad Akbar v. The Stale 2008 SCM R 1448, on similar consideration, their Lordships in the august Supreme Court of Pakistan have been pleased to allow the relief of bail to the accused.
5. I have no hesitation to say here that the said authority is equally applicable to his case with all force. I, therefore, do not feel the necessity of discussing any other aspect of the matter as it is well settled proposition in criminal administration of justice that even one ground which may be l cogent and recognized in law, may suffice in basing an order or finding of Court and not many are required. His case, therefore, is covered within the mischief of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Calling for further inquiry into his guilt to the above effect.
6. He is stated to be behind the bars since 1-12-2008. It has been borne out from the record that he after the occurrence due to having received injuries was admitted to Nishtar Hospital, Multan and he discharged from there on 1-12-2008 and thereafter, taken into custody in this case. This shows that he is behind the bars for last about one year.
7. In these circumstances of the case, I have been persuaded to hold that case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. Resultantly, the petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.