ORDER SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J. F.I.R. No.378 of 2010 was recorded at Police Station Ghotki on 8-8- 2010 for an incident alleged to have occurred on 7-8-2010. Complainant was one Abdul Razzak. He stated that there was some matrimonial dispute between his relatives and he was asked to get that patched-up but he declined to interfere. On this, the present applicant got annoyed and on 7- 8-2010 when son of the complainant and his friend were going on motorcycle, they were stopped by three persons including present applicant. All three persons took pistols from the folds of their shalwars and after giving proverbial hakal, the present applicant fired upon Amanullah with intention to kill and fire nit on left thigh of Amanullah. Co-accused Allah Rakha also fired with intention to murder and fire hit hip of Amanullah Amanullah fell down and third co-accused fired in the air and thereafter they escaped.
2. Learned counsel made the following submissions:--
(a) There is discordance between the medical evidence and ocular evidence. Medical evidence indicates that the injured arrived at the hospital on 7-8-2010 at 10-45 a.m., whereas the incident is alleged to have occurred at 11-30 hours.
(b) The medical report has declared injury as Gher Jaifa Mutlahima which carries punishment of three years and therefore does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Mushirnama of place of wardat does not indicate any blood-stained earth and no empties have been shown to have been recovered.
(d) It cannot be in any case, a case of section 324 because had there been that intention when the injured person was lying prone on the ground, the accused person could have always finished him of.
(e) There is one days delay in lodging the F.I.R.
3. Learned A .P .-G. Vehemently opposed the bail application. He submitted that all witnesses are unanimous and have been consistent in their statements. Evidence is very clear that injury had been caused to Amanullah: Regarding medical evidence, learned counsel submitted that it is only confirmatory in nature.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record. In my opinion, the applicant is entitled to concession of bail for the following reasons:--
(i) From the place of wardhat though it is alleged that applicant was injured in thigh as well as hip, no blood stained earth has been recovered and no empties have been recovered.
(ii) Even if it is proved, that the applicant caused the injury circumstance which has to be taken into consideration that after having been injured while Amanullah was lying prone on the ground, had there been any intention of murder, the accused persons could have in any case finished their job.
The time recorded in medical report is 10-45 a.m., whereas in F.I.R. It is stated that incident occurred at 11-30 a.m., all this creates doubt.
It is settled law that benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused persons even at bail stage, if any authority in this regard is required one may refer to PLD 1998 SC 97.
5. Consequently, this bail application is allowed. Let applicant be admitted to bail for a sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees One Hundred Thousand Only) with P.R. Bond in the like amount and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.