1. SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.---Through captioned post arrest bail application, applicant Shakeel Shah has impugned order dated 25.06.2015, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Naushahro Feroze, whereby his earlier bail application was declined.
2. Necessary facts narrated in FIR are that complainant used to run a Hotel at Bus Stop Khahi Rahu, where on 08.07.2014, at 8.00 p.m., 7 armed persons came and on instigation of accused Ameer Ali Shah, co-accused Nazar Shah and Shakeel Shah made straight fires and Imam Bux sustained bullet injury on his right thigh; hence instant FIR.
3. Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in instant case by the complainant due to ulterior motive; that accused did not repeat the fire though they all were armed with weapons; that two accused persons made direct fires upon injured but he sustained only one injury on his right thigh; that applicant was enlarged on interim pre- arrest bail by learned trial Court but same was declined vide impugned order and applicant was remanded to custody on 24.03.2015, and since then he is behind the bars but prosecution has not examined a single witness during the trial. Learned counsel relied on 2009 MLD 348, 2010 MLD 1052, 2000 PCr.LJ 1917, 1994 PCr.LJ 1769 and 1998 SCMR 500.
4. Learned APG considering the injury on non-vital part of the body, extended no objection.
5. Heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties supported with case law and perused the material available on record.
6. Indeed, parties are already disputed to each other, which is reflected from the averments of FIR. Allegedly, 7 accused persons armed with lethal weapons came at the spot and only co- accused Nazar Shah and applicant made straight fires on the injured, who sustained only one injury at his right thigh, which is non-vital part of the body. Admittedly, none of the culprits repeated fire though complainant and injured were purely at the mercy of accused persons, which prima facie indicates that they have no intention to commit murder of the injured or complainant, which controverts the applicability of section 324, P.P.C. and same requires further probe. Per medical report injured did not sustain any bone fracture. The one and only injury sustained by the injured falls within the purview of (Mutalahimah) section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. which is punishable for Daman and imprisonment for 3 years and same is not attracted by the restraining clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In the case of Jan Muhammad v. Haji Noor Malal and another, the honourable Supreme Court has observed that case against accused in the light of provisions contained in section 324, read with section 337, P.P.C. did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and accused was released on bail.
7. It is significant to mention that applicant at the first instance was granted interim pre-arrest bail by learned trial Court which was ultimately declined, but during said period neither applicant misused the concession of bail nor absconded from the proceedings. Applicant is behind the bars since 24.3.2015, and during the period of more than 07 months, prosecution has failed to examine a single witness to substantiate the charge against him. Investigation has already been completed and applicant is no more required further to the police, hence, his further detention will not serve any useful purpose and there is no apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is well settled that while examining the question of bail, Court has to consider the minimum aspect of the sentence provided for the alleged offence in schedule.
8. Considering the above circumstances, applicant has succeeded to make out a case for grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as envisaged in section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
8. Consequently, applicant is granted post arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000/- and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
9. The observations made above are tentative in nature and learned trial Court will decide the case strictly on merits