' LIAQAT ALI SHAH, J.--- Through this single order, I intend to decide Bail Applications Nos.1857 of 2009, 1913 of 2009 and 2057 of 2009 as all the three petitions arise out of one and the same F.I.R.
2. On 20-4-2009 at 0245 hours constable Nimatullah reported to Muhammad Sher, S.H.O. To the effect that on that night at 0145 hours Aurangzeh Khan A.S.-I., Abid Khan FC No,1891, Bashir Khan FC No,118 were on duty till Zero hours on the Check Post of Village Char Pareeza and thereafter it was the turn of duty of the complainant Wali Rahman No,2647, Noor Rahman 1696; that Aurangzeb Khan A.S.-I. Received information that some robbers were present at Pajaggi Road. On such information, Aurangzeb Khan along with Abid Khan No,1891 and Bashir Khan No,118 in plain clothes and the complainant along with Wali Rahman went towards the spot in Motor Car No,1017-B Tank. The latter two were in police uniform. The car was being driven by Aurangzeb Khan A.S.-I. And when reached near the turn close to the spot, there two masked persons emerged and signalled them to stop whereas two persons also masked were standing by the side armed with Kalashnikovs. They started firing at the police party which resulted in causing injury to the complainant, Aurangzeb Khan A.S.-I. And Bashir Khan FC No,118. The firing was returned by the complainant, Wali Rahman and Abid Khan after jumping down from the car. However the accused decamped because of the darkness of the night. According to the Murasila, when complainant came to the motorcar, he found A.S.-I. Aurangzeb Khan as dead whereas Bashir Khan seriously injured. The deceased and injured were taken to the hospital. The complainant charged unknown accused for the commission of the offence.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the three matters submitted that the cases of the petitioners are that of further inquiry and they are entitled to the concession of bail.
4. At the very outset, the learned Additional Advocate-General was asked as to what is the material whether on judicial file or on police file on the basis of which the petitioners can be connected with the commission of the offence. He responded that there was spy information which is recorded in the case diary plus the statement of one of the accused-petitioner Fazal Subhan given to the police during the course of investigation. The learned Additional Advocate-General was of the firm view that about the case diary and information conveyed by the informer, has a great evidentiary value and on the basis of these two pieces of evidence, the petitioners have rightly been refused bail by the Courts below and even this Court has to take into consideration the above stated material while deciding these bail applications.
5. I am afraid, as a Principal Law Officer, the learned Additional Advocate-General is supposed to assist the Court and not to act as a prosecutor. He could not lay hand on any provision of Evidence Act or any other law making such information/admission of accused before the police even admissible. Only the discovery which is made by the police at the instance of an accused person, when he is in custody, is admissible.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that though the accused-petitioners have been arrested for a very tragic incident but due to lack of reasonable ground leading to belief that they are guilty of the offence charged with, these three Bail Applications are allowed. The petitioners Khaili Jan, Pervez and Fazli Subhan are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,500,000 (Rupees five lac) each, with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court who shall ensure that the sureties are men of means, local and reliable.