' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---Through the instant petition, Riaz alias Rajoo petitioner seeks for his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,514, dated 14-8-2010, offence under sections 324, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Mandi Baha-ud-Din.
2. Allegation against the petitioner, in brief, as per contents of the F.I.R. Is that on 14-8-2010, he along with other co accused attacked upon the complainant party. Fire shot allegedly made by the petitioner landed on shin of left leg of Naveed, bhateja of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in the instant case against the actual facts and circumstances. The mainstay of learned counsel for the petitioner is that' the petitioner, earlier approached this Court through filing Criminal Miscellaneous No,367-B of 2011, which was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of order dated 20-1- 2011 with the direction to the learned trial court to conclude the trial within two months and thereafter the petitioner again approached this Court by means of Criminal Miscellaneous No,6658-B of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 21-6-2011 with the direction to the learned trial court to conclude the trial within one month, however, nevertheless about five months have elapsed, the trial has not been concluded. It is argued that from 21-6-2011 till today not a single adjournment was sought by defence and same cannot be ascribed to the petitioner.
Learned counsel while addressing the Court on merits argues that although non-bailable warrants of arrest of the prosecution witnesses have been issued, however, they are not appearing before the Court to prove the prosecution version. Moreover, it is argued that the petitioner has been assigned the role of inflicting injury on non-vital part of the body of bhateja of the complainant, therefore, keeping in view the dictum of law laid down in the case of Muhammad Umar v. The State and another (PLD 2004 SC 477), he is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with the averments that the petitioner is nominated in the with specific role and charge in the case has already been submitted on 17-1-2011, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.
6. There is no denial to the fact that earlier the petitioner had sought the relief of post-arrest bail through filing Criminal Miscellaneous No,367-B of 2011, which was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of order dated 20-1-2011 with the direction to the learned trial court to conclude the trial within two months and subsequently the petitioner again approached this Court by means of Criminal Miscellaneous No,6658-B of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 21-6-2011 with the A direction to the learned trial to conclude the trial within one month, however, perusal of order sheets appended with the petition reflects that after 21-6-2011 not a single wstness has been recorded despite the fact that the learned trial court had adopted all coercive measures for procuring the attendance of the prosecution witnesses including issuance of their non-bailable warrants. Therefore, keeping in view the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Ashok v. The State (1997 SCM R 436), the accused is entitled to the concession of bail. So far as contention of learned D.P.-G. That the petitioner is assigned the role of inflicting firearm injury on the person of bhateja of the complainant, therefore, he is not entitled to the bail is concerned, while dealing a similar question the apex Court of the Country in the reported case Muhammad Umar v.
The State and another (PLD 2004 SC 477) had granted bail to the accused. It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant portion of the same, which reads as under:-- "A perusal whereof indicates that allegedly the petitioner fired upon the outer side of the right leg's middle part of the injured Shahid lqbal, therefore, prima facie we are of the opinion that he had no intention to fire upon the vital part of the injured Shahid lqbal for the purpose of launching 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"
7. For the foregoing facts and circumstances, sufficient grounds exist to admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail. Resultantly, the instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.