1. ' MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.--- The applicant Mazhar alias Mazhar Ali son of Murad Ali has resorted to file application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Connected with the Crime No,77 of 2004 registered at Police Station Dadu for commission of offences under sections 302, 114, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. Earlier his bail plea was rejected by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, therefore, he has resorted to file the application.
2. ' Prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is that an incident of triple murder has occurred on 1st May 2004 in the house of the complainant at about 2-30 a.m. And the report was lodged at Police Station Dadu at 6-00 a.m. Wherein co-accused Akbar, Imdad, Ahmed Ali, Muharram were shown to be available on the place of incident duly armed with kalashnikovs along with Haji Ismail empty-handed and unidentified assailants who were also armed with guns and rifles, as a result they committed murder of Ghulam Nabi, Soomar and Mst. Pathani. According to the first information report, the role of firing assigned to co-accused Akbar, Imdad and Ahmed Ali.
3. The name of the applicant does not transpire in the first information report however, P.W.
4. Muhammad Hassan and Buxial in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Connected the applicant in the case only the presence of the applicant has been shown at the place of Vardat duly armed with rifle.
5. Mr. Abbasi has mainly contended that co-accused Rustam was admitted on bail by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No,S-855 of 2004 vide order dated 13th July, 2005 whereas co-accused Muharram son of Muhammad Hashim was admitted on bail by this Court vide order dated 3-4- 2006 in Criminal Bail Application No,S-607 of 2005. It is urged that the case of the applicant is at par to the case of co-accused Rustam and is on better footing than that of co-accused Muharram, therefore, the applicant be admitted to bail on the principle of consistency.
6. ' Learned A.A.-G. Has fairly conceded to the fact that the name of the applicant does not transpire in the F.I.R. And later he was connected by the prosecution witnesses, but no active role was assigned to him.
7. ' I have considered the arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the orders referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. There is no cavil, as appears from police record that at the time of incident applicant was armed with the rifle, corroborated by the statements of the prosecution witnesses Buxial and Muhammad Hassan effected under section 161, Cr.P.C., no active role was attributed to him in the commission of crime, the case of the applicant is at par with that of the co-accused Rustam, importing the doctrine of consistency the applicant is also entitled to the concession of bail.
9. ' Accordingly, the applicant Mazhar alias Mazhar Ali is admitted to bail upon furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 (Rupees three hundred thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court.