JUDGMENT LIAQAT ALI SHAH, J.---The matter was reported to the police by respondent No.2 on 6-5- 2010 and on his report F.I.R. No.399 under section 324/34, P.P.C. Was registered in Police Station Abdul Hameed Shaheed Shabqadar, District Charsadda. Initially the report was recorded in the shape of murasila where injured Yaqoob was brought and at that time he was unconscious. He was accompanied by the complainant. The matter was reported in the manner that on that day at 20-10 hours the complainant along with his nephews Yaqoob and Daud had gone to settle a dispute between Aurangzeb and Haya Khan. During the settlement proceedings Haya Khan and Aurangzeb got provoked. Haya Khan caught hold of Yaqoob and Aurangzeb fired at him with fire- arm, as a result of which Yaqoob got injured. Daud was also cited as witness of the occurrence.
2. The injured was examined by the doctor who found fire-arm injury on anterior aspect of the right thigh with charring marks' and corresponding exit. The injured remained admitted in the hospital.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner applied for pre-arrest bail on 27- 7-2010 which was granted but on 25-8-2010 the pre-arrest bail was recalled and he was arrested.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant is contradicted by the eye- witness Daud on the point of firing by single accused as the eye witness has charged besides, the present petitioner, Haya Khan also for firing; that the injury is on non-vital part of the body and as such the intention to attempt at the life, prima facie, does not establish; that no weapon of offence was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and similarly no empty was recovered from the spot. He next submitted that the injury has not been described as dangerous to life.
The learned State Counsel seriously opposed the grant of bail.
4. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their valuable assistance.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant and the eye- witness contradict each other on the number of accused charged for firing, is of no significance as at least to the extent of petitioner, the complainant as well as the eye-witness are unanimous. His next submission that the injury is on the non-vital part of the body and by referring to various judgments, he wanted to persuade this court to hold that the intention to attempt at the life, prima facie, does not establish Without going into the medical aspects with reference to the seat of injury and the arteries located close to the seat of the injury, suffice to observe that in the murasila it is mentioned that when the I.O. Reached the hospital, the injured was in unconscious condition, this fact alone is sufficient to meet the point raised by the learned counsel. The learned counsel next contended that two persons are charged for single injury, here again his on argument, that the eye-witness, Daud, has charged two persons i.e. The accused-petitioner and Haya Khan whereas the complainant has nominated only the petitioner, would go against him because the complainant and the witness Daud are unanimous at least on the point that the firing was made by Aurangzeb the petitioner. It would also not advance the case of the petitioner if the doctor has not given any opinion about the nature of the injury. Similarly, non-recovery of weapon of offence from the petitioner, is also of no significance, more particularly, when the occurrence has taken place on 6-5-2010 and he applied for pre-arrest bail on 27-7-2010.
6. In view of the over-all facts and circumstances of the case, there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence charged with. This bail application, as such, being IA without force stands dismissed.