' Muhammad Zahoor petitioner has sought the cancellation of bail granted to three respondents Gul Muhammad, Abdul Qayyum and Khan Muhammad in a case of attempted murder that arises out - of F.I.R. No,423 dated 8-6-1993 of P.S. Bhana Mari, Peshawar. The charge is affiliated with common intention.
2. While hearing in motion and having applied his mind, the Honourable Mr. Justice Mahboob Ali Khan on 14-9-1993 came to the conclusion that there was prima facie no case of cancellation of bail against Gul Muhammad and Abdul Qayyum and hence the notice was issued to Khan Muhammad alone. Counsel for the parties and Law Officer on behalf of the State heard.
3. The factum of firing is attributed to the respondent Khan Muhammad who on 23-8-1993 was allowed bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar on the ground that the injury caused by the act was simple in nature and hence the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. The amended law of attempted murder now defined by section 324, P.P.C. Has undergone a visible change. Previously an attempt at life, when effective, used to entail larger punishment but now it is provided that during such attempt at life if hurt is caused to any person by such act the offender shall be liable to the punishment provided for the hurt caused. The section does not provide that the punishment for hurt shall be in addition to the punishment for the attempt at life but would be a punishment for the hurt alone if caused. There is a logic behind the new amendment, in that, the intention of a person can better be calculated from the physical consequences of his act rather than looking for various means that are not tangible.
5. Looked from such point of view, the act of the accused-respondent has caused simple injuries to the victim the punishment whereof does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Particularly when the use of pistol itself is yet to be determined at trial in view of non-recovery of any empty from the spot. In the circumstances, the discretion seems to have been property exercised by the lower Courts that calls for no interference. The cancellation of bail is, therefore, declined.