' Wazir Zaman, petitioner, along with absconding accused was proceeded against v.Ide F.I.R. No,148, dated 28-2-1995 under section 324/34, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance registered in Police Station Katlang for causing injuries to the complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case, arising out of F.I.R., are that complainant Muhammad Younas alongwith his friends Samiul Hag and Muhammad Arshad were proceeding towards their house in village Peshah from Village Kati Garhi. Upon reaching at the shop of the petitioner at Kati Garhi, Wazir Zaman, duly armed, appeared from the shop and instantaneously opened fire at Muhammad Younas complainant with which he was hit at his right thigh. He was arrested on 28-3-1995 after the dismissal of his bail before arrest application. Having failed to obtain his release on bail, from the Courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court with the instant application.
3. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and record of the case examined.
' Mr. Khalid Badshah, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner seeks bail of the petitioner mainly on the ground that injuries sustained by the complainant, though with fire-arm, are simple in nature and on non-vital parts of the body and, therefore, would fall under the second part of-section 324, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance which provides that if hurt is caused, the offender shall be liable to punishment provided for the hurt caused. He argued that nature and type of injury sustained by the complainant would be covered by section 337-E(2)(c) "Ghair Jaifah Mutalahima" kind which is liable to punishment of Daman and imprisonment to three years.
' The learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposing the application submitted that injury sustained by the complainant though shown to be simple in nature but it is in fact through and through injury causing cavity and deep hollow wound in the body which could not be termed as simple injury He insisted that in view of medical science it is grievous injury which would fall under the description of section 337-F (Jaifah) and the punishment is provided by section 337-D and the offender shall be liable to Arsh which shall be one-third of the Diyat and also punishable with imprisonment up to ten years as Tazir.
4. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The old law of section 307, P.P.C. Has been Substituted by the neW section 324, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance. So far as the first part of these two sections is concerned, it has not been changed but as for second part there is a visible and a significant change. Under Part II of section 307, P.P.C. Punishment for hurt caused, is imprisonment for life but under the amended law of section 324, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, the offender is held liable to the punishment provided for the hurt caused. Injury caused to the complainant may be through and through but has not caused any damage to the bone. According to medical report, it is simple injury in nature and would therefore, fall under Mutalahimah as described in section 337-E(2)(c) and punishable under section 337-F(iii) with Daman and imprisonment of three years as Tazir which in any case does not come within the purview of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for complainant that the petitioner misrepresented and misguided the Court of Additional Sessions Judge by presenting misleading affidavit on behalf of the eye-witness Samiul Haq wherein he claimed that he had not witnessed the crime but when produced in. Person before the Additional Sessions Judge, he showed his ignorance about the contents of the affidavit.
The perusal of record reveals that Samiul Haq had only said that he did not understand the contents of the affidavit. At no time had he deposed that .He had seen the occurrence. In his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 28-2-1995 he has given the same statement that he had not witnessed the occurrence.
5. In view of the above, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum' of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional/Deputy Registrar of this Court. The.
Additional Deputy Registrar is directed to ensure that the sureties are local and reliable having immovable property in their names equal to the amount of bond.