MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs THE STATE and another

ORDER

' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.--- Petitioner Muhammad Ilyas through the instant petition has prayed for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,373 registered under sections 324, 337F(vi), 148, 149, P.P.C. With Police Station Thengi, District Vehari on 15-1-2008.

2. Briefly, the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that on 14-11-2008 at about 6-00 p.m., .Behram Khan and others while variously armed, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by them have attempted the Qatl-i-amd of Feroz Khan and Muhammad Ajmal.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the petitioner has been ascribed firearm injury to injured Feroz Khan on his right leg near his knee. According to his medico legal report, it is to the following effect:--- "A circular wound of entry corresponding hole on about 0.8 cm x 0.8 cm x going deep inverted margins, on front of upper part of front of right knee joint. Burning blackening present."

4. It has been declared as the one falling within section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. The same does not attract the prohibition contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

5. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last more than six months. It has been argued by the prosecution side that he has remained an absconder. As said above, he is behind the bars for the last more than six months and stated to be a previous non-convict, which has not been controverted by the other side. In the case of Umar Hayat v. The State and others 2008 SCM R 1621, the accused with similar allegation was allowed bail but his bail was cancelled by this Court and it was observed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan that High Court failed to observe whether bail granting order was arbitrary, capricious and fanciful. The prosecution has relied upon the case-law Nosher and others. v. The State 2005 M LD 1071, Shabeer Ahmad alias Shibli v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1348 (Lahore), Muhammad Akbar alias Ghulam Akbar v. State 2007 YLR 1313 and Khalil Ahmad and others v. The State 2007 YLR 2688 in support of the above plea.

6. I may mention here that it is by now well settled proposition in law that each criminal case is to be adjudged in the background of its own facts and circumstances and the facts of two criminal cases seldom co-incide. The case-law, referred to above, by the prosecution side has no apt application to the case in hand for its distinguishable facts and circumstances than those cases.

7. In these circumstances of the case, I find that case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. Resultantly, I accept this petition and admit him to bail in the sum of Rs,100,000 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.