' CH. ABDUL AZIZ, J.---This is an application for bail after arrest on behalf of Zahid alias Zandi in case FIR No,460/2016, dated 15.07.2016, under sections 324, 109, 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Dijkot District Faisalabad.
2. Precisely stated the case of the prosecution as it gleans from the FIR is that on 11.07.2016 about 06:40 P.M., the petitioner while armed with a pistol, fired at Adnan son of Liaqat Ali and caused injury on his right ankle.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is innocent and is falsely implicated in the instant case; that the injury attributed to the petitioner is on the non-vital part of the body of the victim; that the locale of injury shows that the petitioner was not having any intention to commit the murder of the victim and that the petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and he is no more required for the purposes of investigation.
4. The learned D.D.P.P, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the grant of bail and argued that the petitioner is nominated in FIR in reference to the role played by him; that the medical evidence fully, supports the allegations mentioned in FIR; that during the course of investigation, petitioner also led to the recovery of pistol .30 bore and he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Arguments heard and the record perused.
6. The occurrence which led to the registration of the instant FIR took place on 11.07.2016 at about 06:40 P.M. And the matter was reported to the police at about 09:15 A.M. On 15.07.2016. The perusal of the FIR shows that no explanation, whatsoever, is mentioned therein about this delay in reporting the matter to police. The victim was medically examined on the same day. The perusal of the MLC shows that there are two injuries on the ankle of the victim, without there being any fracture of any bone.
7. Having given profound consideration to the arguments of both the parties and the perusal of the record, it appears that the case of the prosecution is to the effect that though the petitioner fired at the victim but the injuries were caused on the non-vital parts of his body. The petitioner, as per FIR, was armed with a pistol but he never tried to inflict any injury on the vital part of the body of the victim/injured. Such aspect of the case, reflects that the petitioner was lacking the intention to commit the murder of the injured. Intention to cause death or knowledge that the death was likely to be caused has to be established, even at bail stage. Such an aspect cannot be proved through some presumption. Reference can be made to the cases of "Nosherwan alias Nosha v. The State"
1994 PCr.LJ 1476 and "Muhammad Afzal v. The State" 2008 PCr.LJ 1352.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the case of the petitioner is found to be within the provision of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. This petition is therefore, allowed and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail 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.