' The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to respndents Nos.1 and 2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order, dated 11-12-1990.
2. According to the F.I.R. Haroon Abbas and Pervaiz respondents Nos.1 and 2 were armed with .12 bore guns at the time of occurrence. They challenged the complainant and Javed Iqbal, injured P.Ws. Haroon Abbas fired with his gun which hit Ashfaq Ahmad, complainant on the right thigh and right buttock. The second shot was fired by Pcrvaiz respondent which caused injuries to Javed Iqbal P.W. On the left thigh and the left buttock. According to the medico-legal report 54 pellet wounds were found in an area of 11" x 8" on the body of Javed Iqbal and 61 pellet wounds in an area of 14- 1/2'. x 8-1/2" on the body of the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the mere fact that the injuries were found to he simple was no ground to grant bail to respndents Nos.1 and 2, who had acted with preconcert and with an intention to kill the injured persons. He pointed out that prior to the present occurrence, in June, 1990 the complainant had a fight with Penda Khan maternal-uncle of respondents Nos. 1 and 2; whereupon a case was got registered under section 307/148/149, P.P.C. Against Pcnda Khan etc. He submitted that discretion was arbitrarily exercised in granting bail to the respondents. The learned counsel for the State supported the petition for cancellation of bail. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 urged that the two persons were injured by one shot. He added that even if it was assumed that two shots were fired, no offence under section 307 was disclosed because simple injuries on non-vital parts of the bodies of the P.Ws. Were caused. He pointed out that the case was fixed for recording evidence. Hence bail be not cancelled at this stage. In this connection he referred to the case of Irshad Begum v. Muhammad Afzal and another 1985 SCMR 1691.
4. The bail granting order is not a happy one as some important facts including the number and dimension of injuries and the background of motive were not properly considered. The Court below has placed reliance on judgments of this Court in the cases of Muhammad Ramzan 1990 P Cr. LJ 897 and Akra alias Tashfeen 1986 P Cr. L J 2876. There are some other cases as well in which bail was granted by superior Courts to the accused persons who had merely caused simple injuries on the non-vital parts of the body though with fire-arm. In this connection reference may be made to the cases of Gul Muhammad v. State 1988 P Cr. L J 1431 and Mulazim Hussain v. State 1988 P Cr. L J
481. However, each case depends on its own peculiar facts. There is no hard and fast rule that in all cases in which simple injuries have been caused by an accused on a non-vital part of body of the victim, bail must be granted. In a proper case, bail can be refused even to an accused to whom ineffective firing is attributed. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Rashid Khan and another v. The State and another 1986 SCMR 933.
5. I refrain from cancelling bail granted to respondents Nos.1 and 2 primarily due to the consideration that there is no allegation of misuse of liberty against them and that their trial has already commenced. If bail is cancelled by making tentative appraisal of the material on the record, the accused respondents might be prejudiced in the trial. In case of Mst. Irshad Begum v.
Muhammad Afzal and another 1985 SCMR 1691 the Honourable Supreme Court had also refused to interfere in the bail granting order in view of the fact that the trial was going to commence after some time. In the present case the trial has already started. I am, therefore, not inclined to cancel the respondents' bail at this stage.
' The petition is dismissed.