1. Applicant Soomro alias Soomar is facing trial alongwith others for an offence punishable under sections 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 147, 148, 149, 114, 504, P.P.C.
2. The case of prosecution as per F.I.R. is that on the day of general elections i.e, on 10-10-2002 at about 14-30 hours the complainant party was waiting for their turn to cast vote when they were attacked by accused persons namely, Hakeem Kumbhar and Ayoob Dars armed with guns, applicant Soomro armed with revolver, Karim Bux Kumbhar, armed with hatchet, Kamal Gujjo carrying Lathi and Mumtaz and Mathenon empty-handed. At the instigation of Manthar and Mathenon guns were fired at the complainant party who ran away towards the crops nearby. The other accused persons also inflicted Lathi and hatchet blows upon the complainant party. F.I.R. of the incident was lodged on the following day at 10-00 a.m. The counter- version of the same incident was also reported by Soomro, the applicant at Police Station Khipro at 11-00 a.m. on 11-10-2002 alleging therein that the complainant party shown in the said F.I.R. was given injuries by the other side.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned State Counsel.
4. Learned counsel for applicant mainly contended that the medical certificates show only gun-shot injuries on the injured persons and there is no bullet injury caused by revolver, there is counter- version of the same F.I.R. giving equally ,a believably story, there is more than 19 hours' delay in loading of the F.I.R. and the maximum punishment for the injuries sustained, as evidenced by medical certificates, is five years. Reliance was placed on Allah Rakha v. State (1993 SCM R 1994) and Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. State (1996 SCM R 1845), on the ground that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the applicant was therefore, entitled to bail.
5. Learned State Counsel, in view of the aforestated circumstances of the case and the principles laid down in the said authorities did not controvert the contentions raised in support of the bail plea.
6. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions in the light of material on record. It is not necessary to dilate upon the contentions based on the counter-version given by the other side and the maximum punishment for the offence with regard to injuries, but the outstanding element in favour of the bail plea is that the medical certificates show only gun-shot injuries and there is no bullet injury. The revolver has also not been recovered and the memo. of place of occurrence does not speak of any empty shell of revolver (bullet) lying at the place of incident. This eminent factor brings the case of applicant within the ambit of further inquiry. The bail plea is, therefore, accepted.
7. In consequence of above discussion the application is allowed. The applicant may be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fitly thousand) and executing P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.