MUHAMMAD Versus STATE

ORDER

1. The applicant is facing trial under section 307/34, P.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The allegations in the F.I.R. are that the applicant and co‑accused Allan Shah had fired at injured Sabban. However, the statement of Sabban shows that Allan had fired gun at him, and he received injury on his thigh. There is no other injury on his person except 2 exit wounds. It has been contended by Mr. Leghari learned counsel for the applicant that although there is allegation that the applicant had also fired but there is nothing in the statement of the injured as well as in the F.I.R. that the fire was effective or that any one was injured due to shot fired by the applicant. This factual position has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the State. Mr. S. Sarfraz Ahmad learned AA.‑G. has conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant and according to him the case of the applicant required further inquiry with regard to the nature of offence committed by him.

2. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. It is an admitted position that injured Sabban had only one entry wound on his thigh which is alleged to have been caused by the shot fired by Allan. There is no allegation that any one was injured due to the shot fired by the applicant. In view of the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the case of the applicant requires further enquiry and therefore, I direct that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

3. H.B.T./M‑691/K Bail granted.