ORDER KHALID PAUL KHAWAJA, J.- On 18-7-1994 at Police Station Kakrali District Gujrat a case under Section 324/34 PPC was registered against Naseem Ullah. Ghulam Sarwar and Khan Muhammad accused at the instance of Faiz Ullah complainant. It was alleged that on 17-7-1994 while armed with 12 bore guns the aforesaid accused had launched a murderous assault on Naseem Ilyas a servant of the complainant, who sustained gun shot injuries.
2. Naseem Ullah and Ghulam Sarwar accused, petitioners herein, who were arrested on 6-12-1994, have applied for their pre-arrest bail.
3. I have heard the parties' learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
4. Modico legal report of Naseem Ilyas reveals that he had suffered fire-arm injuries on his right buttock and back. The said injuries had blackened margins.
5. Initially the case was investigated by the SHO who vide report dated 15-8-1994 came to the conclusion that the case was false. He recommended its cancellation. According to him the injured had been tired at from a distance of about I0O yards but blackening was found on the margins of his wound which was indicative of the fact that he had been fired at from a close range. During the spot inspection he did not find any pellet marks on
6. There is an inordinate delay of 32 hours in the lodging of the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this delay has not been explained which is indicative of the fact that a false case had been concocted.
7. According to the medico legal report the injuries sustained by Naseem Ilyas were jurh.
Ghayrjaifah mutalahimah falling within the purview of Section 337-E PPC and punishable with three years imprisonment under Section 337-F (iii). The offence charged against the petitioners', therefore, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
8. Khan Muhammad the co-accused of the petitioners, whose case is at par with them, has been admitted to bail by the learned Session Court.
9. In view of what has been stated above when there is an inordinate delay of 32 hours in the lodging of the .FIR, the offence charged against the petitioners does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, the medical evidence as pointed the investigating officer is in conflict with the ocular evidence and the petitioners' co-accused has already been admitted to bail, I am of the opinion that the present case requires further inquiry and the petitioners are entitled to the grant of bail. They are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C/Ilaqa Magistrate, Gujrat.