1. ' A case is registered against the petitioner alongwith others under section 307/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Mochh District Mianwali on 1-5-1985. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was armed with 7 MM rifle and that he fired at the complainant ineffectively. The plea of the accused party was that the complainant party were aggressors and that they had resorted to firing. But the investigation has been completed by now and this plea of the accused party has not been accepted. The investigation has been completed and the challan is about to be sent up. The only question which requires determination is whether in such circumstances bail could be allowed to the petitioner who is stated to be behind the bars for the last two months. Both learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate-General will produce authorities before me as to what is the legal position in such cases. The office to relist this matter on 5-8-1985. The Police Officer need not appear on that date. To come up on 5-8-1985.
2. ' [7-8-1985]. In continuation of my order, dated 3-8-1985 learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Noor Haleem Shah v. State 1981 P Cr.LJ 913,in which case three accused were charged with having fired at the complainant but the complainant remained unhurt, held, it was a case of further enquiry and the bail was allowed. He has also relied on Ghulam Abbad and another v. State 1982 P Cr. LJ 997. This case was also under section 307, P.P.C. But of ineffective firing in which no one had received any injury. It was also held that it was a case which required further enquiry and bail was allowed. Reliance was likewise placed on Muhammad Razzaq and 3 others v. The State 1982 P Cr. L J 1105. That was a murder case in which the accused's shot did not hit anyone. Bail was allowed. Learned Additional Advocate-General has attempted to argue that the crime was on increase in the country and if the petitioner had attempted to fire at the deceased in the circumstances as revealed in the F.I.R. Then even if the victim was not hurt or hit, due to the brazen facedness of the petitioner bail should be refused. He has not been able to place before me any convincing or persuasive authority in support of his argument. Indeed the crime has been on the increase but then if it was a case of ineffective firing, the possibility cannot be ruled out that it might have been only to scare the man by ineffective firing. In that view of the matter I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs,30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Mianwali.