' The petitioner Qaisar seeks bail in case F.I.R. No,43/94, dated 19-6-1994 for the offence under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Retra, District D.G. Khan.
2. According to the F.I.R. The petitioner fired from his rifle which slightly injured Mamdu son of Usman as it simply touched his head.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the complainant party was aggressor and one person from the accused party Faiz Muhammad was killed as complainant's brother Said Muhammad fired at him from his rifle and in this respect a case F.I.R. No,44/94, dated 19-6-1994 was registered. He contends that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail on the principle of consistency as well for the reason that the accused who caused grievous injury to the other injured persons were released on bail by the learned trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this bail application.
5. The petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased.
6. The injury ascribed to the petitioner caused to a witness was declared simple and as such the offence would fall under second part of section 324 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 which in turn would fall under section 337-F(i) of the new law (Criminal Law Second Amendment Ordinance XII of 1993), it reads as under:-- "337-F Punishment of Ghayr-Jaifah.--- Whoever by doing any act with the intention of causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause hurt to any person, causes---"
"Damiya to any person, shall be liable to Daman and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year as Ta'zir."
7. The said part of the clauses provided sentence liable to Daman and also punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year as Ta'zir. Reference can be made to Muhammad Afsar v. The State 1994 SCM R 2051.
8. Even otherwise the gun seems to have been discharged from a distant range that is why small damage appears to have been caused underneath the injury. Reliance can be placed on Fazal Masih v. The State 1984 M LD 1480.
9. It is also pertinent to note that the learned lower Court was of the view that it was impossible to point out as to which party was the aggressor as it shall be determined at a trial stage.
10. In the circumstances, it would need further inquiry as to whether the petitioner really intended to cause the death of Mamdu son of Usman or not. I am, therefore, inclined to allow this petition. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Dera Ghazi Khan.