' MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---The petitioners herein have approached this Court to seek the concession of bail in case F.I.R. No,715 dated 4-10-2009 Police Station, Peshtakhara, registered under sections 302/ 324/148/149, P.P.C, after dismissal of their application for bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the instant case is a cross-case of even dated F.I.R. No,717, registered under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. He further submitted that ten persons have been charged for firing on the person of deceased and no specific role to any of the accused has been given. He further submitted that petitioners herein are also entitled to the concession of bail on the principle of rule of consistency as one of the accused namely Shafaqat Ali, has since been released on bail by this Court and placed reliance on the case titled "Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar Haq and others" 1996 SC 1845, Ali Sheharyar v. State" 2008 SCM R 1448 and "Attaullah Khan v. Samiullah" 2009 SCM R 299.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant are of the view that the accused/petitioners along with others have directly been charged for effectively firing on the person of deceased with their common intention, who also remained absconders and under the law absconders are not entitled to the concession of bail. Further contended that the case of co-accused Shafaqat Ali is distinguishable from the present set of accused, who are not entitled to the concession of bail by placing reliance on 1979 SCM R 34, "Sohail Hameed v.
Federation of Pakistan" PLD 1993 FSC 44, and "Ch. Javaid Riaz v. The State" 2007 PCr.LJ 1332.
' The learned counsel for the parties were heard and record of the case was perused with their valuable assistance.
4. Record of the case would reveal that two criminal cases were registered vide two different even dated F.I.Rs, bearing Nos.715 and 717 dated 4-10-2009, wherein the time of occurrence, and venue of occurrence were the same, which on the face of it suggests that it is a case of two versions.
5. In the instant case ten persons have been charged for effective firing on the person of deceased, resultantly who received three injuries. Without going deep into the merits of the case, prima facie it would suggest that the case of accused persons is that of further inquiry as the record in the case is silent about the specific role attributed to any of the accused. At this stage no one from the accused could be held responsible for the effective firing, which is a matter to be resolved after recording of evidence by the trial Court.
6. As far as, cross version appearing in the other F.I.R. No,717 dated 4-10-2009 under section-324/34, P.P.C. The case of the accused/petitioners would again fall within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. At this stage of the case, one is unable to determine as to how the occurrence between the two sets of complainants/ accused started and who was the aggressor and who was aggressed upon and all these facts require further probe by recording of evidence. The view of superior Courts of the land is settled that the accused involved in the cases of the nature referred to above are entitled to the concession of bail on the plea of further inquiry.
7. The submissions of learned counsel for the complainant with regard to the common intention/objection of the accused at this stage, I am afraid hold no ground as again it is a fact which could not be considered tentatively without any solid material in the shape of evidence on the record and in the circumstances of the case it again goes against the learned counsel for the complainant. The case law referred to by the learned counsel for complainant would not be of any help to him at this stage, as all the observations/ conclusions regarding common intention in the referred cases were made after trial of the cases, whereas Federal Shariat Court has considered the provisions of section 34, P.P.C. In comparison to the injunction of Islam.
8. The record of the case would further reveal that on the same set of evidence, one of the accused namely, Shafaqat, was released on bail in a Criminal Miscellaneous. No,1845 of 2009 by this Court by considering all the above facts.
9. The role of that accused in the commission of offence is at par with the role attributed to the present accused / petitioners. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the accused/ petitioners involved in the case are also entitled to the concession of bail. Hence, this petition is allowed and the accused/petitioners are directed to be released on bail, provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum, of Rs,3,00,000 (three lacs) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/ M.O.D. Needless to mention that the sureties be men of means.