1. ' SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.---Applicant Abd-ur-Razak is booked in Crime No,24 of 2012, registered at Police Station Khybrani, under sections 324, 147, 148, 149, 504, 114, 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-H(ii), P.P.C.
2. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Are that on 18-4-2012 at 1700 hours, the present applicant along with seven co-accused duly armed, with pistols and lathies attacked upon the complainant party. It is alleged that accused Abdul Razak and Farman Machi caused lathi blows to the brother of complainant namely Nisar Ahmed whereas accused Abdul Hafeez made straight fire from his pistol upon him which hit on his left leg and blood was oozing.
3. Thereafter, accused making aerial firing went away. The complainant brought the injured at hospital and subsequently registered the F.I.R.
4. ' It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case in hand.
5. ' Learned counsel contended that injuries caused to the injured which have been attributed to the applicant are not serious in nature and it has not been explained that which injury was caused by which accused. Learned counsel contended that there is some matrimonial dispute between the complainant party and accused persons. He further contended that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant in the commission of alleged offence. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the cases reported as 1. Subhan Khan v. The State (2002 SCM R 1797),
2. Jan Muhammad v. Haji Noor Jamal and another (1998 SCM R 500), 3.
6. Muhammad Aslam and another v. The State through A.G. Punjab and another (1997 SCM R 251), 4.
7. Muhammad Safdar v. The State (2007 PCr.LJ 562)
5. Naveed Masih v. The State and another (2011 PCr.LJ 1198) and 6. Babar Rasheed v. The State and another(sic).
8. ' On the other hand, learned D.P.-G. For the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail, on the ground that specific role of causing injuries has been assigned to the applicant. The P.Ws. Have fully implicated the present applicant along with co-accused in the commission of offence.
9. ' I have heard learned counsel for applicant, learned D.P.G for the State and perused the material available on record with their assistance.
10. ' The incident took place on 18-4-2012 at 1700 hours and the F.I.R. Was lodged on 19-4-2012 at 1700 hours for that the complainant has not given any logical explanation. Though the names of accused persons with specific part with specific weapons are mentioned in the F.I.R. But according to Medico-legal certificate, the injured has received as, many as five injuries and out of which only one injury is said to be Shajjah-i-munaqqilah, falling under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. Which is punishable upto 7 years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.- The alleged assault with the purpose of committing murder and its knowledge attracting the provisions .Of section 324, P.P.C. Was a question which can only be determined after recording of the evidence by the trial Court. The injury on the vital part of injured Nisar Ahmed attributed not only to the present applicant but also to co-accused Farman which can be threshed out by the trial Court while recording the evidence.
11. ' For the reasons discussed above and the case-law relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the humble view that applicant/accused has succeeded to make out a case of further inquiry. Accordingly, the applicant is granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 (One lac) and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
12. ' The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not influence upon the trial Court while proceeding with the matter.