' The petitioner stands charged under section 307, P. P. C. It is alleged that on 24-5-1982 he ineffectively fired at Mumtaz with a revolver and thereafter he assaulted him with a churri. The blow landed on the left side of the back of chest.
2. The motive for the offence was that the petitioner's elder brother had been murdered about 5/6 years before the occurrence in which father of the complainant was challaned and acquitted.
Additionally complainant's father stands convicted for causing injuries to the petitioner's father.
3. Bail is urged on the ground that the case is based on false allegations due to enmity, that soon after coming to know of the registration of the case the petitioner surrendered and it is wrong to allege that he was an absconder and lastly that the injury attributed to him has been, declared to be simple in nature.
4. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail. He states that the petitioner is named in the F. I. R. With a specific role and remained absconding for nearly 15 months and was declared a proclaimed offender.
5. The conduct, locale of the injury and the weapon used are the relevant considerations for determining the intent of the accused and not A seeing the nature of the injury alone. In the instant case, the petitioner is alleged to have caused injury with churri on the back of the complainant after making an abortive attempt on his life by firing revolver shots. Furthermore, the petitioner is alleged to have absconded after the occurrence and was declared a proclaimed offender and was arrested about 15 months after the occurrence. In these circumstances, I do not consider him entitled to bail at this stage and accordingly dismiss his application.