Muhammad Akbar, petitioner seeks after arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 54 dated 24-4-2001 under section 324 read with section 34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Abdul Hakim, District Khanewal.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 24-4-2001 at about 5-00 a.m. He armed with carbine, Sarfraz alias Nika with .30 bore pistol, Muhammad Arif armed with .30 bore pistol and Muhammad Mansha empty-handed in furtherance of their common intention have attempted the murder of complainant Muhammad Farooq. He and Sarfraz had fired one shot each on him with their weapons. Hitting on his right thigh, who fell down. They, thereafter ran away
3. The motive behind the occurrence is Sarfraz alias Nika has illicit relation with Parveen alias Rani, the relative of the complainant, who forbade him many times from the same. They had grudge over the same and so committed the above act.
4. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that his co-- accused have been declared innocent in this case; that co-accused Sarfraz to whom pistol shot to the complainant at his right thigh has been attributed stands enlarged on bail; that the motive is also to him; that injury ascribed to him is on the non-vital part of the body of the complainant, therefore, the question of his intention to kill him was not there; that absconsion in such circumstances will not come in his way to the grant of bail; that he is behind the bar for the last about six months; and that he is not a previous convict.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed this petition on the ground that he is nominated in the F.I.R. That he has fired with carbine at the complainant on his right thigh and that he has remained absconder which heavily shows his guilty intent in the matter.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides with the help of the available record.
7. The fact remains that the injury ascribed to him to the complainant is on his non-vital part of the body. There was no repetition of fire on his part. The motive is also not directly relatable to-him and rather to co-accused Sarfraz, who has been declared innocent and granted bail mainly on that ground.
8. Besides than this, all his co-accused have been declared innocent in the instant case. In presence of all these facts, it is yet to be seen that if he would be liable for offence under section 324, P.P.C. And so, his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Calling for further inquiry into his guilt.
9. He is stated to be behind the bar for the last about six months and previous non-- convict.
10. It may be mentioned here that in such circumstances particularly when his case has been found to be one of further inquiry, the alleged absconsion will not come in his way to the grant of bail.
11. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.