MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---The applicant is booked in Crime No,176 of 2010 of Police Station Shaheed Fazil Rahu, under sections 324, 114, 341, 147, 148, 149, 427, 337-A(i), 337-H(2) and 337-L(2), P.P.C.
The story of prosecution case as set out in the F.I.R. is as under:-- "It is complained that I am zamindar and live at above mentioned address along with my other relatives. One day back, Noor Ahmed alias Teeta Pathan, Saleh Shah Pathan, Shahzad Ali Pathan and others exchanged hot words with my relative Asad Cheema and they were annoyed. Last night, I, Zahoor Illahi Cheema and Malik Moazzam came in town in car of Zahoor Illahi Cheema for purchasing goods and when crossed Dr. Asad Hospital via GolarchiAhmed Rajo Road, there were on the road, each Nasir Shah Pathan,
2. Saleh Shah Pathan,
3. Imran Shah Pathan and 4. Mazhar Shah Pathan, all four sons of Hazrat Shah Pathan, having pistols in their hands,
5. Noor Ahmed alias Teeta Pathan, having pistol,
6. Habib' Rehman, having pistol,
7. Shahzada Ali Pathan,
8. Zakir Hussain Pathan, both having repeaters,
9. Hazrat Shah Pathan,
10. Haji Shireen Pathan, both empty handed,
11. Zulfiquar alias Zulqad,
12. Sulleman Pathan, 13 Rashid Pathan, both sons of Haji Shirreen Pathan and 2/3 unknown persons, to whom can identify, on seeing, having lathies in their hands and they encircled us on the road and yet, we stopped the vehicle and alighted Hazrat Shah Pathan and Haji Shireen Pathan, by instigating all the accused persons said not to spare them and beat them to kill, on which, all the accused persons by rioting attack and Nasir Shah Pathan and Noor Ahmed alias Teeta Pathan made straight fires, with the intention to kill us. The shot fired by Nasir Shah hit on the right leg of Zahoor Illahi and the shot fired by Noor Ahmed alias Teeta Pathan hit on the ankle of the left foot of Zahoor Illahi, while Habib Rehman Pathan made straight fire with pistol upon Malik Moazzam with the intention to kill him, which hit on back and Shahzad Ali inflicted the repeater butt blow on the head of Moazzam and Zakir Hussain inflicted repeater butt blows to Zahoor Illahi on his head and Saleh Shah Pathan and Mazhar Shah Pathan fired from their pistols upon the car of Zahoor Illahi and bursted its tyres and all remaining accused persons broken the front and back glasses of car by inflicting lathi blows, meanwhile Malik Lutuf Awan and Mohib Ali Shahani came there and they interfered and rescued us. Thereafter, all the accused persons by making aerial firing went away. Then, we took Zahoor Illahi Cheema and Malik Moazzam to Taluka Hospital, Shaheed Fazil Rahu and getting first aid took them to LUMHS Hyderabad. and -then after treatment appeared and complaint that on the instigation of Hazrat Shah Pathan and Haji Shireen Pathan, the above mentioned accused persons with their common intention, by rioting attacked and illegally restraint us on the road, the accused Nasir Shah Pathan, Noor Ahmed alias Meta Pathan made straight fires, with the intention to kill, have injured Zahoor. Illahi, while Habib Rehman Pathan made pistol fire and Shahzad Ali Pathan by inflicting butt blows to Malik Moazzam, with the intention to kill him, got him seriously injured and the remaining accused persons by inflicting blows to car of Zahoor Illahi caused damage to it, I am complainant investigation may be done.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this is a case of counter version and all the accused persons are on bail except the present applicant. He further submits that there is delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R. which has not been explained by the prosecution. Learned counsel further submits that no recovery of any crime weapon has been effected from the present applicant. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD SIDDIQUE v. STATE PLD 2008 SC 58.
On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant and has submitted that specific role has been assigned to him in the F.I.R. and delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been successfully explained- by the prosecution, as perusal of the provisional medical certificate shows that within 20 minutes of the occurrence of the incident matter was reported to the police and referral letter was issued to the complainant party for medical examination and treatment. He further submits that injury caused by the present applicant falls under section 337-F(iii) P.P.C., punishment whereof is three years but since the applicant has committed offence with intention to kill a person, he is not entitled to bail. He further says that a number of empties were found from the scene. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General further submits that bail application be dismissed as the applicant is connected with the commission of offence.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is an admitted position that no recovery has been made from the applicant though he is in custody since 17-8- 2010. It is also an , admitted position that this is a case of counter version as F.I.R. being Crime No,175 of 2010 has been registered by accused party against the complainant at the same police station.
The challan of the case has been submitted but no further proceedings have been taken place in this matter. For dealing a bail application definite findings cannot be recorded but only a tentative assessm ent is to be made just to find out as to whether present applicant is, prima facie, connected with the commission of the offence or not. Since there is no recovery from the present applicant and admittedly injury caused by him entails only three years' sentence, however, with regard to intention as to whether the applicant made fire for killing any person or otherwise, it requires recording of evidence, hence this case falls within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. calling for further enquiry into the matter. The ratio laid down in the case of Muhammad Shahzad (Supra) is attracted in the circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, I admit the present applicant to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Fifty Thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.