SHAHZEB KHAN vs The STATE and anothers

' WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.---Shahzeb Khan seeks his post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,348 dated 22- 10-2012 for offences chargeable under section 324/34 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 read with section 13, A.O. Registered in Police Station Sarai Saleh, District Haripur.

2. The case of the prosecution, as set up in the F.I.R., is that the complainant Sher Khan so of Karam Khan on 22-10-2012 at 14.10 hours, in injured condition, reported to the police in Emergency Ward, DHQ Hospital, Haripur that Shahzeb son of Aurangzeb had installed a drain on the roof of his house, as a result, the water was falling inside the courtyard of his house; that at about 01.30 hours he along with his son Jameel was closing the said drain on the roof, when Aurangzeb son of Karam Khan came there and he caught hold of him and his son Shahzeb fired at him with the pistol, as a result, he was hit at his left thigh and became injured; that there was no other motive for the offence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the injuries sustained by the complainant were on non-vital part of his body, and no bone was found fractured by the Medical Officer hence section 324, P.P.C. Was not applicable in the case that there is a cross version of the present petitioner recorded vide Madd No,17 dated 22-10-2012; and that the investigation is complete ,and the accused petitioner is no more required to the police for further investigation; that that the report of the firearms expert regarding the pistol allegedly used in the crime was in negative. Learned counsel of the petitioner placed reliance on 1996 SCM R 1845 and 2011 PCr.LJ 1635.

4. Conversely, learned A.A.-G. And learned private counsel for complainant argued that the accused petitioner was directly charged in a promptly lodged F.I.R. With specific role of effective firing at the complainant; that the eye-witnesses of the occurrence have duly supported the version of the complainant; and that the medical evidence also in consonance with the version of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant in support of his submissions relied on 2011 YLR 191 and 2011 YLR 2736.

5. The Valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner heard and the available record of the case thoroughly considered.

6. On tentative assessm ent of the material available on record, only single fire shot is attributed to the accused petitioner, which hit the injured complainant on left thigh, a non-vital part of the body.

As per report of the Medical Officer, no bone has been fractured. Moreover, the accused petitioner did not repeat the overt act to its extreme, although the complainant was at his mercy. Thus, in view of the locale of injuries and sufficient time to repeat the firing, whether section 324, P.P:C. Can be invoked or not is a question, which can only be-resolved by the trial Court after taking into consideration the relevant evidence to be recorded in this respect. Moreover, there is a cross- version recorded in Madd No,17 dated 22-10-2012 by the present petitioner. Similarly, the Firearms Expert has given a negative report regarding the pistol and the empties recovered from the spot.

Hence, 'prima facie', a case of 'further inquiry' is made out in favour of the petitioner, as envisaged in subsection (2) of section 497 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.

7. Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application for post arrest bail of the petitioner is allowed and petitioner Shahzeb is granted bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 (One Hundred Thousands) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, Haripur, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.

' These are the detailed reasons for short order of this Court dated 4-1-2013.