1. ' This bail application has been moved on behalf of Muhammad Zaman who is said to be facing trial under section 307, P. P. C.
2. ' The allegation against the applicant is that while he was beating one Arshad, the injured Muhammad Aslam forbade him from doing so. Thereupon the accused caught hold of. Him and gave him abuses. However on intervention of Hamid, Ashraf and Aslam they were separated.
3. 'Despite that the applicant ran to the quarter of Haji Jawed and returned with a revolver and fired two shots from it at the said injured person. One shot is shown to have hit him on his left thigh causing the injury which has been certified to be x with charring present thereat. Thereafter the accused ran away.
4. ' The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it was not the intention of the accused to kill the injured person as nothing prevented him from using even the remaining two bullets found in the revolver subsequently recovered from the accused's possession. He also submitted, that the injury attributed to the accused is simple in nature and is not on vital part of the body of the injured person. In support of his argument he placed reliance on Lahore case of Mohabat Khan v. The State
(1) in which the view taken was that since the injuries were not found on the vital part of the victim the question of application of section 307, P. P. C. Needs serious consideration.
5. ' On the other hand the learned Additional Advocate-General argued that very use of fire-arm prima facie indicates the intention of the user namely the accused. He further submitted that the circumstances in which the revolver was shot at the complainant also could not be overlooked. He cited unreported case of M. Luqman v. The State (P. S. L. A. No, K/5 of 1978) wherein the Supreme Court was pleased to observe : "We are satisfied that the nature of injury is no criterion to determine under what provision of law the offence falls.
6. ' Prima facie using pistol and attacking Shahnawaz with it appears to be an offence under section 307, P. P. C."
7. I have considered the arguments addressed at the bar. I am of the view that it is not the intention of the accused alone which attracts application of section 307, P. P. C. It has also to be seen whether the accused had the knowledge that if in the given circumstances if he resorted to firing which resulted in death he would be guilty of the murder. In the instant case the admitted position is that when the injurd person prohibited the accused from beating Arshad he had no revolver. It was after he was separated from him by other persons that he went to the quarte of Haji Jawed and fetched the revolver. This circumstance coupled with the range from which the revolver has been fired, clearly show that even if he had no intention to kill, he had the requisite knowledge that his act of firing if resulted in death he would be guilty of the offence of murder. Presence of charring is indicative of the range from which shot was fired. Moreover above Supreme Court authority supports the argument of the learned Additional Advocate-General that the very use of fire-arm prima facie shows that offence under section 307, P. P. C. Has been committed. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is not helpful to him in view of the above Supreme Court authority. Moreover it is dis-I tinguishable on facts.
8. ' For above reasons I see no justification to release the accused on bail Accordingly the application is dismissed.