1. ' SALMAN ANSARI, J.---This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicants Irfan Ali and Nasrullah who have been arrested in this case on a complaint lodged by one Mumtaz Ali on 3-2- 2008 at Police Station, Rukan.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that on 3-2-2008 at about 22 hours complainant Mumtaz Ali lodged F.I.R.
3. That on the same day at about 1700 hours due to enmity with one Jinsar Abro and others as he along with his uncle Muhammad Soomar and brother-in-law Mushtaq his relative Abdul Hafeez and Yasin were standing on the road in front of hotel of Habibullah Solangi, when accused Jinsar alias Chuttal, Moula Bux, Irfan and Nasrullah came there and challenging the complainant Moula Bux fired pistol shots at his brother-in-law Mushtaq which hit him below his chest who fell down.
4. Jinsar fired at Yasin which hit him on the left leg, accused Irfan and Nasrullah caused lathi blow to Abdul Hafeez on his head, Mushtaq died and a case under sections 302,324,337-A(i), 337-F(i), 504 and 34 P.P.C. Against the applicants/accused. Their bail application was rejected by Sessions Judge Dadu on 1-4-2008 hence the present bail application.
5. ' The grounds agitated being that there is a counter-version lodged by the accused party and the case where allegations of causing lathi injuries and aerial firing against the complainant party have been made. The allegations against the two applicants are that they had caused lathi injuries. Placing reliance upon the case of Muhammad Afsar v. State (1994 SCM R 2051), Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. State (1996 SCM R 1125), Yaroo v. State (2004 SCM R 864).
6. ' Learned counsel has argued that the injuries are simple in nature and not on the vital parts of the body of the injured. They are self-inflicted and the case requires further inquiry as one Yasin has exonerated the applicants. Under such circumstances bail be granted to applicants.
7. ' Learned State counsel has opposed the bail application.
8. ' Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that merely because there was counter-version of the incident would be no ground for grant of bail as the counter-version was concocted after the incident in which the complainant party suffered death and injuries to their companions. Placing reliance upon 1995 SCMR 391, it is further argued that cross F.I.Rs, cannot be a ground for bail.
9. Reliance is placed on 1992 SCM R 501 and 1983 PCr.LJ 292. It is further argued that mere possibility of further inquiry which exists in every criminal case is no ground for bail as held in the case of Sardar Muneer Ahmed Dogar v. State (PLD 2004 SC 822) and PLD 1988 SC 621 it would only be that there exists reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed the offence would be sufficient ground for rejection of bail as held in 1989 SCM R 899.
10. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. In this case injuries have been sustained by the complainant party and one Mushtaq had received fatal shot caused allegedly by the accused party in which both the applicants/accused have been named in the F.I.R. Who have taken, part in the incident in which all the members of the accused party would be held liable and section 34, P.P.C. Has been invoked. Even otherwise the applicants/accused have been attributed to have caused head injuries to one Abdul Hafeez, therefore with due respect to the citation relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants/accused, but at the same time finding the case-law cited by learned counsel for the complainant to be more attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case and placing reliance on the same I find at this stage there are clear-cut allegations of the applicants having been involved in a non-bailable offence, I accordingly reject this bail application.