' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Mushtaq Ahmad (petitioner) seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,109 of 2012 dated 10-2-2012 registered for offences under sections 149, 324, 148, P.P.C. At Police Station Civil Line (Gujrat).
2.. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that he being armed with rifle .99 MM, in the company of his armed co-accused launched an attack during the course of which, petitioner fired a shot which landed at the left calf of Muhammad Zahid. The motive relates to previous litigation between the parties.
3. The MLR of Muhammad Nawaz injured reveals one firearm injury on the 'left middle leg, medial side' which was declared as Ghayrjaifah mutulahimah (337-F(iii), P.P.C.), punishable with three years' imprisonment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not cause any injury on the vital part of the body of the injured and in such a situation, application of section 324, P.P.C. Is open to a serious question; the petitioner was taken into custody on 30-3-2012 and he has been languishing in jail ever-since.
5. On the other hand, learned DDPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes by contending that the instant case is in fact an extension of previous two cases lodged at the instance of Muhammad Aslam (complainant) which included case F.I.R. No,315 of 2011 dated 10-12- 2011 under sections 324, 109, 148, 149, P.P.C. And case F.I.R. No,206 of 2012 dated 5-8-2012 for offences under sections 337-1-1(ii), 148, 149, P.P.C. Both registered at Police Station Lorry Adda Gujrat where it the petitioner is a nominated accused; the trial has commenced and petitioner hampered it through various tactics. Lastly submits that the offence committed by the petitioner catches the prohibition of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. (sic) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioner though, did not repeat the fire-shot at the time of occurrence nor he aimed at any vital part of the body of Muhammad Zahid injured yet, it cannot be easily overlooked that the petitioner is a nominated accused of previously lodged case F.I.R. No,315 of 2011 (supra) got registered by one Mirza Tahir Hussain wherein Muhammad Aslam (complainant) is a witness against him for the charge of abetment. Besides, the petitioner is also involved in case F.I.R. No,206 of 2012 (supra) with the allegation that he along with his co-accused indiscriminately fired at the house of Muhammad Aslam (complainant), in the back-drop of case F.I.R., 315 of 2011 (ante). The instant F.I.R. Case wherein, the petitioner seeks post arrest bail is infact, sandwiched between above noted two cases, as F.I.R. No,315 of 2011 was recorded on 10-12-2011 and F.I.R. No, 206/12 was recorded on 5-8-2012 as regards the date of registration of case F.I.R. No,109 of 2012 (supra) which falls on 10-2-2012. It appears that the petitioner and his co-accused are after Muhammad Aslam complainant, who is a witness against them, and they intend to hunt him at any cost so as to stop him from deposing against them. The petitioner cannot ask for a premium for his poor-marksmanship for having fired only once at a 'non vital part' of the body of the injured. It has been brought to the knowledge of this Court that the trial has commenced and prosecution witnesses have been regularly appearing before the trial court but for cooperation of the defence, the trial of the accused/petitioner has not shown substantial progress. Learned trial court could only record examined-in-chief of Muhammad Aslam (complainant) as P.W. I and Zahid Ali (injured) as P.W.2 on 27-11-2012, as the learned defence counsel was not available. The hamper the proceedings of the trial is not a likeable idea. The attending circumstances of the case do not permit me to hold that the petitioner's case constitutes need for further inquiry into his guilt, as required by section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
' For the reasons, recorded hereinabove, I am not inclined to accept this application which is dismissed accordingly.