1. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that Buxan (deceased). Darhoon (injured), Shah Nawaz and Aloo had gone early morning on 30th July 1980, to collect `Bajri' 'from the mountain and were returning home at about 5 p. m. They were all of a sudden challenged by the applicants Kamal, Meeran and four others namely Rozo, Jumo, Mehrab and Misri, out of them Mehrab and Misri had hatchets and all others were armed with single-barrel guns. They encircled the deceased and others and told Shah Nawaz and Aloo to keep away as they wanted to take revenge from Buxan and Darhoon. The applicant Kamal fired at Buxan who died as a result of it. The applicant Meeran fired at Darhoon who had started run--ning away and therefore was hit on back side of his legs. He however succeeded to escape death and informed Din Mohammad, father of the deceased Buxan who lodged the F. I. R. On the same day at Police Station, Khanot of District Dadu. The police after usual investigation sent the applicants and others to stand trial under sections 302/307 and 114/34, P. P. C.
2. The application for bail was moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu at Kotri who by his order dated 20th December, 1980 dismissed it.
3. When this application came up before me for hearing on 4February, 1981 it was pointed out that the trial Court examined the Medical Officer behind the back and knowledge of the accused without affording oppor--tunity of cross-examination either to the accused or to their counsel. As it was not proper, to examine the Medical Officer in the above manner, the trial Court was directed to recall the Medical Officer for his cross-examination within a fortnight when this application was ordered to be heard.th The trial Court recalled the Medical officer accordingly and afforded opportunity of cross- examination to the defence counsel who did not avail of it. The examination of the Medical officer, behind the back and knowledge of the accused was however not proper and should not be repeated.
4. This application has again come up today and the learned counsel for the applicants straightaway does not press for bail of the applicant, Kamal. He however contends that the case of the applicant Meeran is distinguishable as fire-arm injuries on person of the injured Darhoon have been reported to be simple. It has also been pointed by him that Darboon did not lodge the F. I. R. In spite of the fact that he was present at the police station with the complainant Din Mohammad and no recovery has been made from the applicant. Therefore his case requires further inquiry as contemplated by section 497(2), Cr. P. C.
5. The learned Additional A. G. Opposes to grant of bail to the applicant Meeran as the allegations against him are that he fired at Darhoon who was also a target of the applicants for taking revenge of the previous, enmity. The fact that Darhoon has received simple fire-arm injuries would not exclude the applicant from sharing common intention of commission of murder and also of offence under section 307, P. P. C.
6. I have carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicants as well as State. This is a broad-daylight incident which has been witnessed by as many as 3 eye-witnesses out of them Darhoon is an injured person and allegedly a target for murder. He has no doubt escaped death but has received as many as four fire-arm injuries. It is therefore premature to distinguish the applicant's case at this stage as I do not find it fit to grant bail to him and his application is dismissed. The application of the co-accused also stands dismissed having not pressed by his counsel.