'SYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---The petitioner seeks concession of bail in case FIR No,99/09 dated 5-2-2009 under sections 324/337F(vi)/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Mangatanwala District Nankana.
2. As per allegations contained in F.I.R., it is lodged that the complainant Mukhtar Ahmed had shifted to Ghulam Abad due to strained relation with his brothers. On the fateful day at about AASER WAILA, the complainant along with Gulbaz had gone to Gulzar Ahmed to collect money from Bashir Ahmed and Gulzar Ahmed. When he was standing outside the house of Gulzar Ahmad after getting money, Sardar Ahmed armed with Sota, Abdul Sattar Waseem Ahmed alias Seemi armed with pistol approached there. Sardar Ahmad and Abdul Sattar raised Lalkara not to spare Mukhtar, who entered into the house of Gulzar to save himself. The accused persons also entered into the house of Gulzar Ahmed where Waseem alias Seemi petitioner fired with pistol which landed on the knee of right leg of the complainant, which went through and through. The accused also made firing but escaped luckily. In the meanwhile, co-villagers attracted to the spot. Hence, this case.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a juvenile and in this regard he appended photocopy of birth certificate of petitioner issued by the Government of Punjab, attested by Secretary Union Council concerned, dully attested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, according to which, the date of birth of minor is 18-8-1992. It has been further argued that the locale of injury is on the leg, which is not vital part of the body and at the most the offence attracted in this case is 337-F(6), P.P.C., which does not fall within the domain of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It is further argued that during the course of investigation it was found that occurrence had taken place outside the house and not as per F.I.R. Prior to this, the injured himself fired on the leg of his real brother, subsequently, the matter was patched up. Dispute of property between the parties is admitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon re: 'Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique PLD 1989 SC 585 and re: Muhammad Umar v. State PLD 2004 SC 477. He also contends that the petitioner is behind the bars since 13-4-2009. Therefore, he also enjoys the benefit of section 10 subsection 7(b) of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant rigorously opposed the petition on the ground that the over-act of the petitioner is reckless. He has fired on his real uncle. The challan has been submitted in the Court; that the locale of injury established by the medical evidence.
During the course of investigation, the petitioner was found guilty.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the occurrence has taken place outside the house and not in the manner as mentioned in the F.I.R. If the occurrence would have taken place outside the house it was obligatory duty of the Investigation Officer to add section 542, P.P.C, which could have strengthen the prosecution case. The record otherwise shows that the averments of F.I.R. Are aggravated and during the course of investigation those were found incorrect to that extent. The dictum laid in the judgments of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in re: Muhammad Ismail v.
Muhammad Rafique PLD 1989 SC 585 and re: Muhammad Umar v. State PLD 2004 SC 477, the premium of bail was extended on the similar ground. In my humble view this case is even placed on higher pedestal as compared to one referred. The petitioner in this case is juvenile and enjoys the benefit of section 10' subsection 7(b) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
'With these observations, this petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.