RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J. - The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 191/2010, dated 11.8.2010, under Sections 324/34/337-F(iii)/337-F(vi), P.P.C., Police Station Raja Jang, District Kasur.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution version as set forth in the F.I.R. Recorded on the statement of Majid Hussain, complainant is that the petitioner was coming from his duty and when he arrived near Masjid Ahsan, Ijaz Ali alias Bondi armed with pistol 30-bore and Shah Wali Ullah, petitioner armed with pistol 30-bore made fires on him. The fires made by Ijaz Ali alias Bondi hit him on the right arm whereas the fire made by the petitioner landed below the abdomen on the left side. He alleged that few days back a quarrel took place between him and Ijaz Ali alias Bondi so the petitioner and his co-accused made firing in order to cause his Qatl-i-Amad. They remained busy in the treatment and obtained the medical certificate.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in fact the complainant has made aggression and a cross-version was put forth so it is yet to be determined as to who was responsible for the occurrence; that only single fire arm injury is attributed to the petitioner so the intention to kill is not evident and the allegation in this regard needs further probe; that no pistol was recovered from the petitioner; that at the most offence punishable under Section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. Is made out, which is punishable with Daman and imprisonment of either description for three years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. The learned D.P.G. And the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the petition by contending that the contention regarding cross-version is totally false as no one was injured from the accused side; that this is not a case of single injury rather the petitioner and his co-accused while sharing common intention caused injuries with their respective fire-arms on the person of the victim so they are responsible for all injuries sustained by him. The fire made by the petitioner hit the victim just below the abdomen and as such it cannot be gathered that he had no intention to cause Qatl-i-Amd and that the petitioner is not entitled to concession of a bail as prima facie, he is involved in the commission of the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. The contention of the petitioner that the complainant had made aggression and beaten the petitioner is not supported by any tangible proof. He is not medically examined. It appears to be a self-tailored version and does not absolve the petitioner of his act. The petitioner and his co- accused white armed with pistols made firing oh the victim/complainant. He sustained four fire- arm injuries out o which two are entry wounds. The injury attributed to the petitioner is just below the abdomen so it cannot be accepted at this stage that the petitioner and his co-accused did not have the intention to .Cause Qatl-i-Amd. P.Ws have full supported the prosecution version. The non-recovery o the pistol is not fatal to the prosecution case in the presence of the ocular evidence. Prima facie the petitioner is connected with the commission of the offence falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. No ground fo grant of bail is available. The petition is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed.