' S. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---The applicants, by this application, seek bail in Crime No,93 of 2005 of Police Station Taluka under sections 302, 324, 148, 149 and 337-H(2), P.P.C.
' The facts as appear from the F.I.R. Are that on 12-10-2005 at about 2030 hours complainant Ghulam Ali reported that in the morning, his son Majid Hussain had a dispute with Muhammad Ali over a pigeon and they exchanged harsh words thereafter Muhammad Ali had beaten his son, the complainant in order to pacify the dispute asked for forgiveness for the sake of Holy Qur'an despite the elders of Muhammad Ali were annoyed with complainant. In the evening, the complainant along with his sons Zahid Hussain, Majid Hussain and Sajid Hussain was standing in front of shop, when at about 5-00 p.m. They saw 1. Muhammad Ali,
2. Sikandar Ali having Kalashankovs,
3. Ahmed Ali having rifle, all the three sons of Ghulam Siddique,
4. Lutuf Ali,
5. Kaleemullah both sons of Hyder Ali having guns in their hands, all by caste Phull, Muhammad Punhal son of Muhammad Mithal Shaikh, Rahib son of unknown Shaikh, Esso son of unknown Shaikh, Ali Nawaz son of unknown Shaikh, all residents of village Phull, having guns in their hands, while coming, raised hakal and abused them and told them that your boy had a quarrel with our boy, therefore, today he will not be spared, and will be murdered, meanwhile accused Muhammad Ali made direct fire from the Klashanikov on his son Zahid Hussain, after two fires, Klashanikov of accused Muhammad Ali became non-functional , then accused Muhammad Ali snatched gun from accused Ali Nawaz Shaikh and made gunshot at Zahid Hussain, which hit him and fell down by raising cry, meanwhile accused Sikandar Ali and Lutuf Ali made fire with their respective weapons at his son Majid Ali, which hit him and he fell down by raising cry, accused Kaleemullah and Muhammad Punhal made direct fire at Sajid Ali, which hit him and fell down by raising cry, all the accused went towards their houses by firing in the air, thereafter the complainant saw that his son Zahid Hussain had succumbed to the injures caused by fire-arm on his chest, abdomen, and on the right leg, and his son Majid Hussain received fire-arm injuries on both legs and was bleeding, and Sajid Hussain received fire-arm injury on chest and left arm and right legs and was bleeding. Then he with the help of his son Ayaz Hussain, who had reached the place of incident, removed dead-body of deceased Zahid Hussain, injured Majid Hussain and Sajid Hussain to Government Hospital Larkana, lett Ayaz Hussian to look after and had come to lodge the complaint that above mentioned accused due to the said incident armed with deadly weapons, accused Muhammad Ali fired with K.K. And gun, had murdered his son Zahid Hussain and accused Sikandar Ali and Lutuf Ali with their respective weapons with intention to commit murder, has injured his son Majid Hussain and accused Kaleemullah and Muhammad Punhal made fire at his son Sajid Hussain with intention to commit murder from their guns, and rest of accused made aerial firing upon them in order to harass.
' Bail application of the present applicant did not find favour with the learned Sessions Judge and was rejected vide order dated 9-6-2006.
' Learned counsel for the applicant while arguing the bail plea on behalf of the applicants has contended that accused Punhal had also lodged F.I.R. No,94 of 2005 wherein he has reported the death of his son, namely, Ehsanullah due to fire-arm injuries caused by Ayaz Hussian in the same incident and therefore it is a case of counter-version and the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail in view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq (1996 SCM R 1945). It was further contended that the role assigned to the present applicant as appears from the F.I.R. Is that the applicant No,1 i.e, Punhal and Kaleem fired at Sajid who sustained four injuries and as per the medical evidence the injuries sustained are classified under section 337-F(iii) and (iv) and the maximum punishment is five years. As to the case of applicant No,2 Sikandar, it is alleged that he along with co-accused Lutuf fired at Majid which caused two injuries and such injuries are also classified under section 337-F(iii) and (iv) and maximum punishment prescribed is five years. It was contended by the learned counsel that since it is a case of counter-versions where one person from the complainant party and one person from the accused party have received fatal fire-arm injuries resulting in their death, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Shoaib Mehmood Butt (Supra) it is a case of further enquiry within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Entitling the applicants for the concession of bail.
' On the other hand learned Assistant A.-G. Has not objected to the grant of bail to the applicants on the ground that the injuries alleged to the applicants are classifiable under section 337-F(iii) and (iv) and maximum punishment provided is five years and further since there is a counter F.I.R.
Therefore, the applicants are entitled to such concession.
' I have heard the submission of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the record. It appears that accused Punhal lodged F.I.R. Bearing Crime No,94 of 2005 on the same day at 2110 hours i.e, hardly 40 minutes after lodging of the first F.I.R. Wherein he reported the death of his son Ehsanullah. Since the complainant as well as accused persons have given different version of the same incident by lodging two different F.I.Rs, therefore, the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Shoaib Mehmood Butt (ibid) to the following effect is fully attracted:--
16. In case of counter-versions arising from the same incident, one given by complainant in F.I.R.
And the other given by the opposite-party case-law is almost settled that such cases are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. In such cases normally, bail is granted on the ground of further enquiry for the reason that the question as to which version is correct is to be decided by the trial Court which is supposed to record evidence and also appraise the same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard. In cases of counter-versions, normally, plea of private defence is taken giving rise to question as to which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed. In the case of Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmad (1976 SCM R 391) in cross-cases the High Court granted bail to the accused on the ground that there was probability of counter-version being true as some of the accused had received injuries including a grievous injury on the head of one accused. It was held by this Court that in such circumstances the High Court was right in granting bail and no interference was warranted. In the same context, reference can be made to the case of Mst. Shafiqan v. Hashim Ali and others (1972 SCM R 682).
' In the circumstances the applicants are found entitled to the grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as it is yet to be determined by the trial Court as to which of the version is correct by recording evidence and further to determine the intention and to hold them vicariously liable or otherwise. In addition the injuries attributed to the present applicant are classified under section 337-F(iii) and (iv) and the maximum punishment is five years. In the circumstances the applicants are admitted to bail upon their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,300,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.