' A case F.I.R. No,63 was registered at Police Station Kotli Sattian, District Rawalpindi, on 10-5-1995 on the report lodged by Zahid Nawaz under section 324/148/149 read with sections 337-A(iv) (v), 336, P.P.C. Against Khalid, Shaukat, Zafar, Sher Dad and Abbas. According to the contents of the F.I.R., the allegations against the accused are that they caused injuries to Muhammad Nawaz, Muhammad Irshad and Zahid Nawaz, as they were armed with guns and hatchets. Further contends that Muhammad Nawaz sustained one simple injury caused with sharp-edged weapon on his back which is attributed to Ghazanfar. There is a .12 bore pellet injury on the head of Muhammad Irshad which is attributed to Muhammad Khalid accused. He also received an incised wound attributed to Abbas accused which was declared simple in nature by the doctor. Two more simple sharp-edged injuries were found on his person which were attributed to Sher Dad accused who was armed with a hatchet. Further submits that Sher Dad accused suffered two injuries on his person during the alleged occurrence, one injury was on his head caused with sharp-edged weapon and the second was on his right thumb. No opinion was given by the doctor with regard to the nature of the injuries.
These injuries have also not been explained in the F.I.R. By the complainant. Regarding the motive, it has been stated in the F.I.R. That few days earlier, some bitter talk took place between Sher Dad accused and Muhammad Shafiq, who is uncle of the complainant. No cross-case was registered by the Police though Sher Dad accused was got medically examined by the police on 10-5-1995.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the grounds that no injury has been attributed to Shaukat petitioner of any one. The only allegation against him was that he fired at the complainant who laid down on the ground and saved himself; that no crime empty was recovered from the spot; that cross-version was brought to the notice of the police but it was not explained in the F.I.R.; that injuries on the person of Sheer Dad accused have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. Which tantamount to active concealment on the part of the complainant party.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment reported in 1990 SCM R 1085, wherein in a case of ineffective firing, bail was granted to the accused. He has also relied upon 1995 PSC 15.
According to this judgment, injuries caused on the person of the accused have actively been concealed and the bail was granted to the accused.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel Ifas opposed the bail petition vehemently on the ground that the petitioner applied for pre-arrest bail in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, who granted him ad interim bail vide order, dated 28-11-1995, but the petitioner remained absconder and absented himself for about a month. During the investigation, .12 bore gun was recovered from the petitioner and a separate case was also registered against him under the Arms Ordinance.
5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was brought to the notice of the police that the petitioner was serving in the Army and if his presence was needed, he could be procured through his Unit. He further contended that no finding whatsoever has been given regarding the injuries on the person of Sher Dad accused. Lastly, learned counsel submits that in the circumstances, it becomes a case of cross-version especially for the reason that the alleged occurrence took place near the house of Sher Dad accused.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In this case, no injury has been attributed to the petitioner. The only allegation against him is that he was armed with .12 bore gun with which he fired at the complainant but the same did not hit him. During the investigation, the gun was recovered at his instance regarding which a separate case was registered against him under the Arms Ordinance. The motive has not been directly attributed to hint. In the present cage, out of the accused persons, four are father and sons and the fifth accused is maternal-uncle of the petitioner. Be that as it may, no injury has been attributed to Shaukat petitioner and there is some cross-version alleged by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.