MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---The preient applicants are booked in Crime No,175 of 2010 of Police Station Shaheed Fazil Rahu under sections 324, 341 147, 148, 149, 337-F(i), P.P.C.
The case asserted by complainant Haji Muhammad Shireen in the F.I.R. is as under:-- "Complaint is that I am businessm an residing at the above address. Two days back our relative Noor Muhammad alias Teeta Pathan having altercation with Asad son of Muhammad Akram Theema. We due to neighbouring ignored it. Today, I was at home when Habibur Rehman Pathan informed me on phone that there is a quarrel, with Noor Ahmed and Shahzad Ali at Pakistan Chowk in which Shahzad Ali has received fire arm injuries. I on receiving such information came at Pakistan Chowk from my house, saw my son Shahzad Ali having fire arm injury on his left arm and one Fajjar Ali son of Habibur Rehman Bangali Rajput having fire arm injury on his right leg. I made inquiries from my son Shahzad Ali who stated that I, Noor Muhammad alias Teeta Pathan, Saleh Shah Pathan were coming to town for purchasing aftari articles. When at 0630 hours reached at Pakistan Chowk where accused 1. Zahoor Ellahi,
2. Ali Haider, 1 Asad all three sons of Muhammad Akram Cheema having pistols in their hands,
4. Malik Moazzam Awan,
5. Malik Ahmed Awan, 6.
Qamar alias Guddu Jatt and Mosam Khokhar armed with clubs who were available at one car and two motorcycles, they encircled in front of us on the way. To whom accused Zahoor Ellahi Cheema by abetting stated do not spare them, kill them, on which above accused by rioting attacked over us whereby Ali Haider Cheema fired straight with the pistol in his hand, with intention to commit murder on me. The bullet hit me on my left arm and Asad Cheema fired straight with the pistol in his hand over Saleh Shah Pathan which missed and hit to Fajjar Ali son of Habibur Rehman Bangali Rajput a passerby on his right leg and other accused caused lathi, kicks and fists blows to me, Saleh Shah and Noor Muhammad alias Teeta. Meanwhile, Habibur Rehman son of Zarmanosh Pathan and others intervened theieby rescued us. Thereafter, accused boarded on car and motorcycle then fled away. Meanwhile relatives of injured Fajjar Ali removed him to hospital and I while appearing with Shahzad Ali at Police Station, lodged the report that 2 days back on normal altercation the above accused being biased duly armed with pistols blocked the way, on the instigation of Zahoor Ellahi Cheema by rioting attacked thereby severely injured my son Shahzad Ali with intention to commit murder and injured Fajjar Ali Bangali Rajput too and Saleh Shah Pathan, Noor Ahmed alias Teeta Pathan have been inflicted lat his fists and kicks blows. I am complainant, investigation be done."
Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that as per F.I.R. two A persons namely Shahzad and Fajjar sustained injuries. He further submitted that as per F.I.R. Shahzad sustained fire arm injury on left arm attributed to Ali Hyder whereas Fajjar sustained fire arm injury on his right leg which has been attributed to Asad Pervaiz Cheema. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that provisional medical certificate relating to Shahzad shows that injury sustained by Shahzad was self-inflicted. He further submitted that Fajjar has tiled an affidavit before this Court, stating therein that he had sustained injury prior to the incident which is subject-matter of this case. He further submitted that medical report relating to Fajjar shows that injury sustained by him is about 15 hours old though Fajjar was referred to Medical Officer immediately after the matter was reported to the police without any delay. He says that since both the above named pieces of evidence clearly makes the case of prosecution doubtful, entitling them for confirmation of bail. He has invited my attention to the order dated 21-9-2010 whereby present applicants were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 each and P.R.
Bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court. Learned counsel says that aforesaid order be confirmed.
On the other hand, learned D.P.-G. has not opposed the confirmation of bail for the reasons that medical evidence available on record clearly makes the case of prosecution doubtful for the reasons mentioned hereinabove.
In the circumstances and with consent of learned D.P.-G., the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants vide order dated 21-9-2010 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.
The Criminal Bail Application stands disposed of.