' Muhammad Akram, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No,2 Karam Hussain alias Kama by Ch. Shabbir Hussain the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh vide his order dated 14-6-2003 in case F.I.R. No,8 dated 6- 1-2003, under section 324 read with section 34, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Khan Garh District Muzaffargarh.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the same are that the said case has been registered on the statement of one Muhammad Attaur-Rehman. He has alleged therein that on 6-1-2003 at about 3/4 p.m. Respondent No,2 while armed with carbine had fired < I Muhammad Akram injured resulting into the injuries to his both the legs.
3. He applied for his post-arrest bail. The same was extended to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh vide his afore referred order.
4. It has been contended on his behalf that he by his act has made the injured Muhammad Akram disabled and he remained in the Hospital for about 23 days and so he did not deserve the grant of bail at an early stage of the case; and that he is labourer by profession and his family has suffered a lot due to his remaining in Hospital and this too was the circumstance to be taken into consideration against respondent No,2 at the time of grant of bail to him.
5. I have carefully considered his submissions and gone into the copies of the record annexed to the petition.
6. I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh while extending him (respondent No,2) the relief of post-arrest bail was influenced mainly by the fact that he did not repeat the fire and that the injuries sustained by Muhammad Akram, injured were on the non vital parts of his body. According to him, this had rendered the question of application of section 324, P.P.C. In the case against him needing serious consideration. This observation, I am clear in my mind, is not incorrect. This when was the position then the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not at all err in allowing the relief of post-arrest bail to him (respondent No,2). I may mention here that even one reason recognized in law is sufficient to grant relief to a party and not many (sic) required. Hence, I do not find that there exists any case for cancellation of bail granted to him (respondent No,2). The petition, therefore, is dismissed in limine.