' SAYYED MAZHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---Through the instant petition, Usman Latif petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R . No, 14/2010, dated 17-1-2010, under sections 324, 337-F(v), 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Sahiwal, District Sargodha.
2. Allegation against the petitioner, in brief, as per contents of F.I.R. Is that he while armed with gun 12-bore made straight fire upon the complainant, hitting his shin.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case with mala fide intention. It is also argued that the petitioner is a young man of 18/19 years of age who while in judicial lock-up had passed his F.A. Examination in Is t division, which reveals that the petitioner has mended up his ways. It is also contended that only one fire has been attributed, which did not hit vital part of the body of the injured. It is also argued that the offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. To substantiate his case, learned counsel has relied upon the dictum of law reported as Muhammad Umar v. State and another (PLD 2004 SC 477), Mazhar v. State (2008 M LD 1277) and Crl.
Miscellaneous No,4355-B/2010.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner fired at the complainant with an intention to kill him, therefore, as case of the petitioner attracts prohibition contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C., he is not entitled for the concession of post arrest bail.
5. Arguments advanced from both sides have been heard. I have also perused the record available on file.
6. As per allegation contained in the F.I.R., the petitioner while armed with gun 12-bore fired upon the complainant landing, at the right shin of the injured, which admittedly is non-vital part of the body. A Moreover, the petitioner is young man of 19/20 years of age who as per his learned counsel has passed his F.A. Examination in Ist division while in judicial lock-up. This stance of learned counsel for the petitioner has not been rebutted by the other side and it seems that he has mended his ways.
7. In a similar case reported as Muhammad Umar v. The State and another (PLD 2004 SC 477), the august Supreme Court of Pakistan had held as under: - "---Accused, according to medical certificate had allegedly fired upon the outer side of the right leg's middle part of the injured witness and, prima facie, he appeared to have no intention to fire upon any vital part of the said witness for the purpose of launching murderous assault---Challan had been submitted in the Court, trial had commenced, accused was in custody since the date of his arrest and was no more required to investigation---No useful purpose could be served by keeping the accused in custody in circumstances---Accused was admitted to bail accordingly".
8. For the foregoing reasons and while placing humble reliance on the above ratio decidendi of the august Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that there are sufficient grounds to enlarge the petitioner on post-arrest bail. Resultantly, the instant petition is accepted and the B petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest 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.