1. ' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---The applicant is booked in Crime No, 293 of 2009 of Police Station, Ubauro for offences purnishable under sections 302, 364, 436, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C.
2. ' The facts of the prosecution case precisely stated are that on 17-7-2009 one Mumtaz Ahmed Solangi lodged report at Police Station, Ubauro that there is tribal feud going-on in between Kosh and Solangi communities, as such on 12-7-2009, the present applicant along with his other accomplices in a large number duly armed with sophisticated weapons viz., Kalashnikovs and Rifles and Rocket Launchers assaulted upon their houses and started indiscriminate firing. The accused persons on the force of weapons kidnapped his father Ahmed Ali and brother Zahoor Ahmed and after covering some distance, his father Ahmed Ali was murdered by the accused persons by causing him fire-arm injuries, while his brother was spared on the intervention of the nekmards. The accused persons in the assault fired Rocket Launcher Shells, as a result thereof, the entire houses of the complainant party including house hold articles were burnt and damaged, they tried to extinguish the fire, but could not succeed. Thereafter the complainant lodged such F.I.R. At Police Station, Ubauro.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is inordinate delay of 5 days in lodging of the F.I.R. Which has not been explained. He further invited my attention to the contents of the F.I.R.
4. Wherein no specific role to the present applicant has been assigned and no overt act has allegedly been committed by the present applicant. No recovery has been affected from the present applicant. He further says that applicant has been involved in this case due to previous enmity. He further says that similar role as that of present applicant was assigned to co-accused Farooque whose name is appearing at Serial No,28 but police has shown him in column No,2 of the challan.
5. He further says that the allegations are general in nature and no overt act has been attributed to him and there is delay in F.I.R., hence this is a case of further enquiry in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. ' On the other hand, learned A.P.-G. For the State has opposed the grant of bail and tried to justify the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. But his submissions are not plausible. He attempted to resist the grant of bail on the ground that four houses were burnt by all the accused persons in connivance with each other, hence the present applicant is not entitled for bail.
7. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
8. ' From the perusal of the FIR., it appears that no role has been assigned to the present applicant. No recovery has been affected from him and there is delay of 5 days in lodging, of the F.I.R., which has not been explained by the prosecution. Admittedly there is previous enmity between the parties which is apparent from the reading of the F.I.R.
9. ' In this view of the matter, I am of the view that this is a case of further enquiry in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., Accordingly, I admit the applicant to bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.