' A case under section 324/34, P.P.C. Was registered against the petitioner and two others at the report of Manzoor Hussain a brother of the injured Akhtar Abbas. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner while armed with a .12 bore gun had fired at the aforesaid Akhtar Abbas thereby causing fire-arm injury on the back side of his left shin. The occurrence had taken place on 9-7-1997 at 7-15 p.m. Whereas the F.I.R. Was lodged after the delay of 4 days on 13-7-1997.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties are inimical to each other and that the case has been cooked up in order to trap the petitioner falsely. In this respect it is alleged that the F.I.R. In this case was delayed by about 4 days; that the petitioner was found innocent by the first Investigating Officer namely Ahmad Khan, A.S.I. As according as according to him the occurrence has taken place because the gun of the victim had accidentally went off. The investigation was then entrusted to Muhammad Riaz, D.S.P., H.Q., Sargodha who believing the prosecution witnesses came to the conclusion vide report dated 20-8-1997 that the petitioner was found linked with the occurrence as he had injured the victim. The investigation was once again transferred and handed over to Abdul Qadir, D.S.P. Sillanwali who vide his report recorded in the case diary dated 2-10-1997 came to the conclusion that the petitioner was innocent and be got discharged from the case. After the aforesaid investigation, the case was handed over to Khalid Bashir, Inspector, Crime Branch for further investigation, who came to the conclusion that the petitioner and his co-accused were guilty according to the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. In this respect he recorded his finding in the case diary dated 28-11-1997 with the observation that the matter still needs further probing.
3. In view of the above facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case of further inquiry as the Investigating Officers have not come to any penultimate conclusion regarding the guilt or innocence of the petitioner or his co-accused. However, an incomplete report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been sent to the Court concerned.
4. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that though there is delay of about 4 days in filing the F.I.R., but the same has been explained in the F.I.R. Itself as the accused side was trying for a compromise and had as such gained time which delayed the filing of F.I.R.; that after the aforesaid explanation for delay, the same would not remain material; that the investigation conducted by the last Investigating Officer had found the petitioner and his co-accused linked with the occurrence and as such the petitioner would have no case for bail at this stage.
5. I have considered the foregoing submissions made at the Bar. As already pointed out that two Investigating Officers have held that the petitioner is innocent whereas the remaining two have held him guilty having been fired at the victim. The last Investigating Officer is of the view that the matter still needs A further probing. In such a situation, it will be a case of further inquiry, and the petitioner would be entitled to bail particularly when he is behind the bars since his arrest on 5-8- 1997. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.