Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, J.--Through this petition under Article 185(3 ) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 20 dated 1.01.2021 under Sections 324/427, P.P.C. at Police Station, Latamber , District Karak. The same relief was denied to him by the learned trial Court as also by the High Court vide impugned order .
2. Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the complainant reported the matter to the Police that on the day of occurrence, he went to meet his sister and was sitting with her in her baithak when the petitioner , who is brother of her sister's husband (`daivar'), while arme d with firearm came there and started firing at him with the intention to kill him and as a result, he sustained injury on his buttock.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia argued that it is a family dispute and the petitioner is `daivar' of complainant's sister; that the allegation against him is not substantiated from the record as it is stated in the crime report that the fire shot was made from behind the wall, which is 5 feet in height; that the locale of the injury does not reflect that the fire shot could be made from the place where the assailant has been shown; that the injury ascribed to the petitioner though has been declared grievous in nature but the dimension of the injury has not been shown; that mere opinion of the doctor that the same is grievous in nature without mentioning the nature of injury as provided under the statute makes it a case of further inquiry falling under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr .P.C.
4. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned Law Officer that the injury ascribed to the petitioner is on vital part of the body; that there is a serious allegation against the petitioner with very strong motive; that there is ample evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence; that the injury was declared grievous by the doctor . However , he frankly conceded that the nature of the injury has not been disclosed.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Law Officer at some length and have perused the record with their assistance.
There is no denial to this fact that the occurrence took place in the broad daylight and the parties were known to each other , so there is no question of misidentification. However , during the course of proceedings, we have noticed that the injury ascribed to the injured PW/ complainant though is declared grievous but the same has not been mentioned under what definition/class it falls. The nature of the injury clearly reflects that the same has not caused any serious damage to the body of the complainant. Although the doctor has declared it grievous but the dimension of the injury has not been apprised, therefore, the medical report is materially deficient in its contents and did not qualify to be material evidenc e. We have been informed that the inves tigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. The case of the petitioner is of further inquiry as envisaged under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and further no useful purpose would be served while keeping him behind the bars till the conclusion of the trial pending adjudication before the Trial Court.
6. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Consequently , we convert this petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order and admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (rupees two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.