1. ' KHALID ALI Z. QAZI, J.--- This order is proposed to dispose of bail application moved by Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, filed on behalf of accused/applicant Amir Ali son of Ghulam Sarwar and Ashraf Ali son of Sikandar Ali who are involved in case F.I.R. No,72 of 2008 registered with Police Station Civil Lines, Larkana under sections 324, 353, P.P.C.
2. ' Brief facts of the prosecution case requisite for disposal of this bail application are that on 20-4- 2008 at about 2030 hours at Loco-shed Railway Colony the applicants accompanied with two unidentified accused armed with pistols and knife attempted to commit Qatl-e-Amd of police party headed by AS.-I. Wazir Ali Bhutto while making ineffective firing besides deterring them from discharging their official duties.
3. ' I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The learned Advocate for the applicants contended that both the witnesses along with the complainant are police officials and the only section 353, P.P.C. Applied, is bailable and other section 324, P.P.C. Is not applicable because there is ineffective firing and none has received any scratch. He submits that it is a case of prosecution that there was encounter between the parties but none has received a single injury. According to Mashirnama of place of incident not a single empty has been recovered.
4. He contended that as per FIR., the place of incident is thickly populated area and so many private people were available but police party has failed to make any independent person as Mashir of place of Wardat. He contended that the alleged recovery of weapons is foisted upon the accused/applicants by the complainant party with mala fide intention. He submits that the applicants are respectable persons and one Ashraf is clerk/Munshi of an Advocate. He has relied upon Zaheer Ahmed v. State 2008 YLR 7312 and on an unreported judgment in the case of Aijaz Ali v.
5. State in Criminal Application No,S-609 of 2007. In both the cases this Court has granted bail under the similar circumstances.
6. ' Mr. Nisar Ahmed Abro, learned State Counsel conceded to the grant of bail application.
7. On tentative assessm ent of the evidence, the applicants does not seem to be involved in counter- firing or ineffective firing as alleged as it cannot be adjudged whether the applicants had fired upon the police party on account of unsuccessful hit to anybody, on the contrary the police does not make efforts to involve or invite any independent person as a Mashir of the case in hand. It is also admitted position that not a single empty has been recovered from the place of incident and no police official has been injured so much so police vehicle itself has not received any scratch. In the above background in the absence of any injury caused to the members of the police party or any scratch on the police vehicle/motorcycle it cannot be conclusively held that the applicants are involved in an encounter otherwise the issue can be determined after the evidence is recorded. In support of the contention reliance is placed on the case of Rab Nawaz.v. State 1990 SCM R 1085. I am very respectful in following the bail granting orders of my learned colleagues Justice Mrs. Qaiser Iqbal and Mr. Justice Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui as mentioned hereinabove. Under the circumstances I am of the humble opinion that this is a case of further enquiry under subsection
(2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicants/accused shall be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.