1. ' Khalil-ur-Rehman and four other petitioners stand involved in case F.I.R. No.157 dated 13-3-2005 registered at Police Station Hangu under sections 302/ 324/148/149 P.P.C. The petitioners moved an application for grant of bail to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hangu which was declined through order dated 5-5-2005. Thereafter the petitioners applied for their release on bail before the Sessions Judge, Hangu but the same was not considered and turned down vide order dated 12-5- 2005. The petitioners have approached this Court with the similar prayer.
2. ' Mr. Asadullah Khan Chamkani, Advocate, for the petitioners in support of the bail application, contended, inter alia, that except the bare allegations in the F.I.R. There is no other evidence available on record to connect the petitioners with the commission of alleged offence; that medical evidence coupled with the site-plan falsify the entire prosecution case; that in view of cross-case question of aggression can be taken into consideration at bail stage; that Crime Branch on the application of petitioners also conducted independent inquiry in which the petitioners were exonerated of the charges levelled against them and that facts and circumsta ices of the case strongly suggest that it is case of further probe and clearly falls within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. In this regard, reliance was placed on Dr. Muhammad Aslam v. State (1993 SCM R 2288), Muhammad Shabbir v. State (1997 PCr.LJ 1570), Muhammad Rafique v. State (2003 PCr.LJ 1151), and Maqsood Javed v State (2001 PCr.LJ 2065).
3. ' Ms. Neelam A. Khan, Advocate, for the State assisted by Mr. Naveed Maqsood, Advocate, for the complainant, on the contrary, bitterly opposed the bail application and attempted to argue that cross case has been registered with mala fide intentions and that bail has been refused to the petitioners for valid reasons and the impugned order is not open to legitimate exception. In support of the contentions reliance was placed Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq (1996 SCM R 1845), Haji Bahadar Khan v. Abdul Subhan and another (1994 PCr.LJ 2523), Muhammad Nisar Khan v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1154) and Rasheed Ahmad and 2 others v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1810).
4. ' I have heard at length the arguments and submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material on record.
5. To consider the bail matter of an accused person involved in a non-bailable offence, if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he shall not be released on bail unless case is covered by any of the provisions in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. If it appears to the Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are no reasonable grounds that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall be released on bail under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. ' It would be seen that in matters concerning bail, the exercise carried out by the Court is a preliminary one and is restricted to a tentative sifting of the evidence on record opposed to an elaborate sifting of the case. The Court has only to see whether the accused was connected with the commission of crime or not. For that purpose, only tentative assessment of evidence is to be made and deeper appreciation is not called for. It is the mind of the Court which is to be satisfied that the case under its consideration is fit case or not for grant of bail.
7. No doubt it is true that the petitioners stand directly nominated in the F.I.R. And a specific role of firing has been attributed to them, culminating into the crime in question but it is equally true that during course of investigation the injured witnesses namely Zar Muhammad and Habib Khan appeared and submitted affidavit regarding occurrence and on one hand admitted the cross- case and also absence of petitioners on the spot at the relevant time. The Crime Brach in view of the application of the petitioners also conducted independent inquiry in which the petitioners were exonerated of the charges levelled against them. The factum of cross case registered vide F.I.R No.158 dated 13-3-2005 under section 324/34 P.P.C. At the instance of accused Shabbir-ur-Rehman can also not be ignored at this stage. Having regard and facts and circumstances, I find that it is a case of further probe and clearly falls within the domain of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The petitioners are in jail ever since their arrest on 13-3-2005. They are no more required for further investigation/interrogation and no useful purpose would be achieved if they are allowed to remain in jail for indefinite period.
8. ' In view of the above, the application of the petitioners is accepted and they are released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Maga/Judicial/Duty Magistrate, Hangu.
9. ' Before parting with this order would like to add that the observations made above are tentative in nature and relate to the order in hand only.