1. ' IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.---The prosecution case in precise is that on 11-12-2010 at 1900 hours F.I.R.
2. Was lodged and it is alleged that one Mumtaz Ali is dealing with the preparation of documents and Kabli vehicles and complainant paid Rs,48,000 to him for the preparation of documents for the Indus Corrolla Car and such payment was made in presence of Ikram and Sikandar Ali who are related to said, Mumtaz Ali. It is alleged that Mumtaz Ali has not fulfilled his promise and on 18-12- 2010 complainant along with his witnesses went to Mumtaz Ali at the morning time and knocked the door of his house where his wife responded and disclosed that Mumtaz Ali is not available in the house. Hence the complainant party proceeded to their village. On the same day at 10-15 a.m.
3. Mumtaz Ali called on phone and asked the complainant to wait for him at their village as he has proceeded towards their village. Complainant and his witnesses were waiting on their main road Nim Laro where at about 10-30 a.m. Accused Mumtaz Ali come in Toyota Corrolla white colour car having TT Pistol, Farhan, Kamran and Rehan all sons of Mumtaz Ali were also armed with TT Pistols and one unidentified person was also with them. At the same moment, accused Mumtaz Ali abused complainant and asked him that why he has abused his inmates and knocked the door of his house. It is further alleged that on the instigation of Farhan, accused Mumtaz fired from TT Pistol upon the complainant in order to commit his murder which hit on the back side of left leg thigh. It is further alleged that the accused also fired upon the brother of complainant and relatives but the firing missed.
4. ' After submission of charge sheet, accused Mumtaz was granted post arrest bail whereas Kamran and Rehan have been granted pre-arrest bail.
5. ' Mr. Syed Aijaz Ali Shah, counsel for the applicant/complainant contended that all the respondents in furtherance of common intention attacked upon the complainant and respondent Mumtaz fired from his pistol with intention to kill the complainant but fortunately the fire hit on the non vital part of the injured. For rest of the respondents he states that their have acted in furtherance of their common object as they have accompanied the principal accused Mumtaz Ali.
6. ' On the otker hand, Mr. Abbasi counsel for the respondents Nos.2 to 4 states that the injured received firearm injuries on non vital part of body. Injured was at the mercy of respondents but they have not repeated the fire short. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. He has placed reliance on the case of Umar Hayat v. The State 2008 SCM R 1621, Mir Muhammad v. The State 2011 PCr.LJ 361, Muhammad Umar v. The State and another PLD 2004 SC 477 and case of Miran Bux v. The State PLD 1989 SC 347. He further contended that the respondents Nos.3 and 4 have not caused any injury to any person nor to any body else present there. He states that the learned trial Court has rightly granted post arrest bail and pre-arrest bail to respondents Nos.3 and 4.
7. ' Mr. Altaf Hussain Suraliio, State counsel supports the impugned order and states that the trial Court has rightly granted post arrest bail to respondent No,2 and pre-arrest bail to respondents Nos.3 and 4.
8. I have considered the submission of the counsel for respective parties and have gone through the law laid down by this Court and honourable Supreme Court. Admittedly, the allegation against respondent No,2 is that he caused firearm injury at the left thigh of the injured and in such circumstances the honourable Supreme Court in the case. Of Muhammad Umar (Supra) granted bail to the petitioner with the following observations:-- "(5) We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record particularly the medical certificate. A perusal whereof indicates that allegedly the petitioner tired upon the outer side of the right leg's, middle part of the injured Shahid Iqbal, therefore, prima facie, we are of the opinion that he had no intention to fire upon the vital part of the injured Shahid.. Iqbal for the purpose oflaunching murderous assault. Be that as it may, now the challan has been submitted, trial has commenced, petitioner is in custody with effect from the date of his arrest and is no more required for the purpose of investigation of the case, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by keeping. Him in custody."
9. ' Similarly, in the case of Umar Hayat (supra) observed as under:-- "(2) Precise allegation against the petitioner is that he fired 4-5 shots from his pistol on complainant, out of them, one fire hit on the left knee of the complainant. The said injury comes within the ambit of section 337-F (v), P.P.C.
(3) It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that said offence is punishable for five years and does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., as such, bail was rightly granted to petitioner by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mian Channu, advancing cogent and sound reasons. According to him, petitioner was arrested on 15-11-2007, but till 30-1-2008 challan was not submitted as such his detention in custody was illegal.
(4) On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab supported the impugned order and admitted that challan was not put up within prescribed period before the competent Court of law.
(5) We have considered the contentions raised at Bar and after having gone through the orders passed by the Courts below are of the opinion that petitioner was rightly granted bail by the learned trial Court. The learned High Court while cancelling the bail has failed to observe whether bail granting order was arbitrary, capricious or fanciful.
(6) In view of the above, petition is converted into appeal and is allowed. The impugned order of the learned High Court is set aside. Appellant, namely, Umar Hayat is granted bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court".
10. ' In the case Mir Muhammad (supra) which authored by me and the observations recorded therein are as under:-- "In the instant case the allegations against the applicant are that he has caused gunshot injury on the right arm, which was declared as Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Hashimah punishable with Daman and imprisonment for five years. Following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that applicant Mir.Muhammad is entitled for concession of bail. Consequently, bail is granted to the applicant subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 and P.R.
11. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court".
12. After considering the law laid down by this Court and the honourable Supreme Court I am of the view that the trial Court has rightly granted post arrest bail to respondent No,2 and pre-arrest bail to B respondents Nos.3 and 4. I see no merits in this Criminal Miscellaneous Application which is dismissed.
13. ' Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,29 of 2011 stands disposed of.