1. ' MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.---By this order, I intend to dispose of Cr. Bail Applications Nos.258 and 348 of 2008 filed by applicants Rind and Shabir, in crime No,11 of 2008 of Police Station Sarhad.
2. 'Case of the prosecution is that on 3-2-2008 when complainant along with his cousin Hidayatullah and nephew Kambar Ali was sitting in his house, both these accused persons along with their six more companions named in the F.I.R., duly armed with weapons entered into his house and on account of some dispute previously happened, on the instigation of applicant Rind, accused Yaseen fired with K.K. On complainant with intention to kill him which hit on his forehead and accused Zahoor fired with K.K. On the wife of complainant Mst. Zareena, who also received injuries.
3. Accused Mitho and Sher also gave hatchet blows to complainant's wife, who subsequently succumbed.
4. ' It is contended by learned counsel for applicant Rind that only allegation against this applicant is of instigation, to other culprits who caused injuries to the complainant and his wife. Referring to report of AIGP CR and Investigation, Sukkur region made on 15-3-2008 to the AIGP (Investigation), Karachi, it is contended by learned counsel that AIGP CR and Investigation, Sukkur in his report observed that the case is false and frivolous and has recommended for disposal of it as cancelled case. But further papers in the matter show that it was not accepted by the learned Magistrate, therefore, challan was submitted.
5. It is further contended by learned counsel that the versions of complainant and prosecution witnesses, who are said to be in company of complainant at the time of incident, are contradictory to each. According to complainant incident took place in his house whereas P. Ws. Hidayatullah and Kambar are not confident as to the place of happening of incident. In first part of their 161, Cr .P.C. Statements, it was deposed that incident took place at the house of complainant whereas in second part of their statements, they deposed that incident took place in their respective houses. If statements of all three persons are considered it create confusion as to the place of incident, which make-out a case of further enquiry.
6. ' Learned A.A-G. Opposing the grant of bail to applicant Rind stated that he was absconder, therefore, is not entitled for the grant of bail, but these arguments of learned A.A-G. In view of date of arrest of applicant on 14-2-2008 i.e, after about 11 days of incident does not have any weight therein.
7. ' So far as the case of applicant Shabir is concerned, though in the F.I.R. Specific role of him along with co-accused Mitho causing hatchet injuries to complainant's wife is there, but according to learned counsel for applicant Shabir, as per medical report injury No,4 has been, disclosed as cause of death bf Mst. Zareena. It is stated by him that in presence of two persons it is hard to say that the said injury was caused by whom. Formally it can be assumed that it was common intention of both applicants, but in view of contradictory version of complainant and his witnesses about place of incident at this stage and having no evidence of recovery of crime weapon, no definite opinion against to any person can be formed.
8. ' Accordingly, these bail applications are allowed. Applicants are allowed to be released on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,500.000 (Five lacs) each with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.