1. ' Applicant is facing trial in the Court of III-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana for an offence punishable under section 324/34, P.P.C., for causing fire-arm injuries to his sister-in-law Shabana with intention to commit her murder. The case of prosecution as disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged by Din Muhammad is that the victim Mst. Shabana was present in her house and complainant Din Muhammad, her father had come to see her when accused Ranjho armed with pistol accompanied by an unidentified person, also armed with pistol entered the house and both of them made direct fires at Mst. Shabana. She was hit and she fell down. Regarding the motive it is stated in the F.I.R. That Ranjho used to insist that Shabana should obtain divorce from her husband Muhammad Murad, the brother of accused Ranjho and he used to threat that otherwise he would commit the murder of Shabana.
2. ' I have. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned State Counsel.
3. ' Mr. Mugheri, learned counsel for the applicant argued that there were two accused persons both allegedly fired from their pistols at Mst. Shabana, therefore, it cannot be ascertained whose fire hit the victim. He further contended that the injuries are on non-vital part of the body, therefore, it cannot be said at present that the assailant had an intention to kill the victim. He relied on the cases of Saleem Khan v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 140, Muhammad Shakeel v. The State 1996 Criminal Law Judgments 238, Zulfiqar v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 2285 and Mansha Khan and 2 others v. The State 1977 SCM R 449.
4. ' Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail plea and submitted that there are fire-arm injuries on the person of the victim and the motive stated in the F.I.R. Is supported by the witnesses which shows that, prima facie, the applicant had an intention to commit Qatl-i-Amd.
5. I have considered these contentions in the light of material on record collected during the investigation. There are four fire-arm injuries out of which one is wound of entry on right shoulder and another is wound of exit on upper right arm and the third, a wound of re-entry at right armpit.
6. It is stated in the F.I.R. That the applicant used to compel Mst. Shabana to obtain divorce from her husband Muhammad Murad, the applicant's brother and openly issued threats that he would otherwise kill Mst. Shabana. In furtherance of the said motive, as alleged, Mst. Shabana was caused injuries by making fires from pistols, in her house in presence of complainant. One of the injuries has been declared to be 'Jaifah' which is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years, in addition to Arsh to the extent of one-third of Diyat.
7. ' It appears that there is enough evidence to indicate that prima facie an attempt was made on the life of Mst. Shabana and fire-arm injuries were caused to her, and as such at this stage it cannot reasonably be conceived that the applicant who had the motive to commit the offence was not liable for the alleged offence. The authorities cited by the learned counsel are also not applicable to the instant case. In the case of Zulfiqar v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 2285, the offence was punishable with Daman, but in the instant case the offence is punishable with ten years and also with Arsh. Similarly, in the case of Saleem Khan v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 140 bail was allowed on the ground that the injury was on the non-vital part of the body and it was observed that prima facie it showed lack of intention to commit Qatl-e-Amd. In the instant case there are four fire-arm injuries and from the circumstances of the case it can be discerned that apparently in the background of the motive, described in the F.I.R., there appears to be a serious attempt. In the case of Muhammad Shakeel v. The State, reported as 1996 Criminal Law Judgments 238, the offence was punishable with imprisonment for not more than seven years and on this ground bail was allowed but in the present case the offence of 'Jaifah' is punishable with ten years and the offence is also punishable under section 324, P.P.C. In the case of Mansha Khan and 2 others v. The State 1977 SCM R 449, one of the factors for grant of bail was that the offence was punishable with seven years' R.I. With due respect, as already submitted, the facts of the present case are quite distinguishable and the offence is punishable under section 324, P.P.C. And also as 'Jaifah'.
8. It is needless to mention that each case has its own set of facts and the bail plea is to be examined in the light of the peculiar circumstances of that case. As observed in the case of Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Abbass 1998 SCMR 284 it is settled principle that the Court seized of the jurisdiction for examining question of bail should make only tentative assessment of the facts without making detailed reference to the merits. Reference, whatsoever to the facts of the case in the foregoing para. Has been made with a view to pointing out that the evidence on record if unrebutted would make out a case against the accused/applicant. In the case reported as Dildar Baig v. The State 1998 SCM R 358, bail in a case for an offence under section 324/148/149, P.P.C. Was refused in view of the facts that the name of the accused was mentioned in the F.I.R. With.a specific role and the allegations against him were serious in nature. This principle is clearly applicable to the instant case and as such I am inclined to hold that the bail plea at this stage is without merits.
9. However, the observations whatsoever in this order are tentative in nature and shall not affect the merits of the case at the trial.
10. ' The bail plea being premature, the application is dismissed with direction to the trial Court that the trial be conducted expeditiously and the eye-witnesses particularly Mst. Shabana shall be examined as far as possible within two months failing which the applicant would be at liberty to move this Court again for bail. The order shall not debar the applicant from moving the trial Court if the evidence recorded at the trial makes out a case in his favour.