Muhammad Usman alias Thingo, the petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.83 dated 12-7-2001 under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Bangla Ichha, Tehsil Rojhan, District Rajanpur.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 12-7-2001 at about Asr prayer time he and his co-accused while having lethal weapon had attempted the Qatl--i-Amd of Abdul Shakoor. He had fired on him with Kalashnikov hitting on the shin of right leg.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is grudge over the incident of injuring Muhammad Rafiq Lathani by Abdul Ghani and Abdul Shakoor.
4. The bail has been sought on the ground that he has falsely been roped in that injury ascribed to him is on the non-vital part of body of Abdul Shakoor; that there was no repetition of injury on his part; that there is also conflict in the ocular account and the medical evidence inasmuch as that only one injury was found on the body of injured while two shots allegedly were fired at him and one of these by him and the second by his co-- accused Bakhsho and the same makes his case as one of further inquiry into his guilt; that he had no knowledge of the case against him and he has not at all absconded; that no incriminating article was recovered from him; and that he is behind the bars for the last about 4-1/2 months and a previous non-- convict. In support of bail he has relied upon the case of Muhammad Afsar v. The State 1994 SCM R 2051.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he has fired with Kalashnikov hitting injured Abdul Shakoor on his shin of the right leg; and that he has remained absconder for quite some time speaking of his guilty intent in the matter.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
7. The fact remains that injury ascribed to him is on the non-vital part of body of injured Abdul Shakoor. There was no repetition of fire by him. So the question that if he had intended to kill him would certainly require serious consideration.
8. Admittedly no incriminating article was recovered from him. So, his case is amply covered under subsection (2) of section 4.97, Cr.P.C, requiring further inquiry into his guilt. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the case of Muhammad Afsar v. The State 1994 SCM R 2051.
9. He allegedly had remained absconder for some time. It is to be mentioned here that I case of an accused when is found fit for bail, he cannot be refused bail merely on the ground that he has remained absconder. It is the contention from his side that he had no knowledge of the case against him.
10. Anyway, in view of the above, I find him entitled to bail.
11. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail provided he furnishes bail bond 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 Ilaqa/Deputy Magistrate.