' The petitioner is an accused in case F.I.R. No, 13 of 1995, dated 18-1-1995 for the offence under section 324, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Machiwal, District Vehari. He has preferred this bail application after the same was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari.
2. Brief facts are that Muhammad Akhtar complainant stayed in the house of his close relative Majeed son of Chair Din one day prior to the occurrence. On 18-1-1995 at about 8 a.m. He proceeded to the house of Ramzan son of Imam Din. He was ambushed by the petitioner Muhammad Khurshid who fired from his gun which hit the complainant on the ankle of his right foot causing multiple injuries. Muhammad Ishaq son of Haji Wali Muhammad and the other persons of the same locality witnessed the occurrence but the petitioner decamped.
3. The petitioner in the first instance preferred an application before the Senior Civil judge/Magistrate Section 30, -Vehari who admitted the petitioner to bail vide his order, dated 28- 2-1995. However, the bail of the petitioner was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order, dated 7-8-1995. Hence this application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Magistrate whereby the bail was granted to the petitioner was in consonance with the law laid down by the superior Courts whereas the learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the bail without any valid reason.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the record minutely.
6. Section 324, P.P.C. As amended by the Ordinance LXXIII of 1994, dated 25-10-1994 is as follows:-- "324.-- Attempt to commit Qatl-i-Amad.--- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that, if he by that act caused Qatl, he would be guilty of Qatl-i-Amd, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall (in addition to the imprisonment and fine as aforesaid) be liable to the punishment provided for the hurt caused."
' It is, therefore, clear that the offence under section 324, P.P.C. As amended falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. However, it is the complainant's own version that the petitioner fired one shot which caused him injuries on his foot. The mere fact that the bone was fractured in the process did not mean that the petitioner's only intention was to commit the murder or that he had the knowledge, that, if he by that act caused Qatl, he would be guilty of Qatl-i-Amd. In order to determine the aforesaid intention or knowledge of the petitioner, locale of the injury was of much relevance. In this case the injury was found on the non-vital part of the victim. In also cannot be glossed over that the petitioner did not repeat the alleged overt act although the victim was at his mercy at the relevant time. Further the aforesaid injury was not likely to result in death in usual course of nature nor was so imminently dangerous was as to be likely to cause death. Reliance can be placed on Ch. Muhammad Anwar Samma etc. v. The State 1976 SCMR 168. The observation made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that "actually the petitioner fired straight at the victim and that it was his sheer good luck that it injured him on his ankle and is alive today" was based on mere conjectures.
Since the matter needed further inquiry, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was neither capracious nor whimsical.
8. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was guilty of the offence. I am, therefore, inclined to admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Ilaqa Magistrate, Vehari.