1. MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, J.---Applicants, seek bail, in Crime No, 52 of 2010 registered on 16- 9-2010, at 1-30 p.m., under section 324/34, P.P.C. by one Khaissor with Police Station Dukki District Loralai.
2. ' Facts, as borne out of record are that on 15-9-2010, at 7-00 p.m. complainant, along with his son and other relatives was sitting in front of Masjid, Amir Muhammad, Dost Muhammad, Gul Muhammad and Muhammad Akbar armed with Kalashnikovs started firing upon the complainant and his son. Dost Muhammad son of Khaissor received bullet injury on his right eye and the victim was removed to Quetta. Persuant to said F.I.R. police started investigation and arrested the appellants.
3. ' Application for bail was moved in the Court of Sessions Judge, Loralai, which was declined, vide order dated 13-10-2010, hence this application.
4. ' Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants have been booked in a false case and there is no independent evidence to connect applicant with the alleged commission of crime. It was urged with vehemence that there is considerable delay in lodging of F.I.R. and no explanation has been offered by the prosecution. Inordinate delay, leaves no room for doubt that F.I.R. has been lodged with consultation and deliberation. It.was further submitted that no eye-witness has been mentioned in the F.I.R. Challan has been submitted and applicants are no more required for the purpose of investigation. The statement of victim has been recorded on 22-9-2010 and there is no explanation by the prosecution. It was contended that in any case according to the statement of victim, role of effective tiring has been attributed to Amir Muhammad alone, therefore, case of rest of applicants falls within the ambit of further inquiry and applicants are entitled for grant of bail.
5. ' Miss Rubina Jabeen Butt, learned D.P.-G. vehemently opposed the bail application. She contended that applicants have been nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role. There are eyewitnesses, who have recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. and applicants have been implicated. She submitted that there in no delay in lodging of F.I.R. because complainant instantaneously removed the victim to Quetta. The victim remained hospitalized at Quetta and was discharged on 21-9-2010.
6. On 22-09-2010, he recorded his statement, therefore, no question of delay.
7. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. It is the case of prosecution that on 15-9-2010, at 7-30 p.m., victim and his father were sitting in front of the Masjid.
8. Applicants reached there and attacked upon the complainant and his son by firing with deadly weapons. In order to save their lives, they started running, in the meanwhile, Dost Muhammad sustained a bullet injury on his right eye. Police recorded the statements of two eyewitnesses namely Abdul Majeed and Abdul Wahid. P.W. Abdul Majeed has stated that on 15-9-2010 he along with other relatives was waiting for Maghrib Prayers, in the meanwhile accused persons armed with Kalashnikov came out from their house and started firing upon Khaissor and his son Dost Muhammad. Dost Muhammad sustained injury in consequence of such firing. Statement of Abdul Wahid is to the same effect. A meaningful glance of prosecution case reveals that two eyewitnesses attributed act of indiscriminate firing to all the applicants, which culminated in causing of bullet injury to the son of complainant. The statement of victim recorded on 22-9-2010 takes a departure from the story as far as the causing of injury is concerned. According to victim, applicant Muir Muhammad chased him and in consequence of firing made by Amir Muhammad, he sustained injury on his right eye. There is delay of 1\8 hours in lodging of F.I.R. and police station is situated at the distance of two kilo meters. Though police has collected eight empties from different places, yet there is no site plan showing exact location of empties and presence of accused at the relevant place. I have given my anxious thoughts to the entitlement of applicants for concession of bail. A careful examination of record reflects that Amir Muhammad is not entitled for grant of bail, because victim has sustained bullet injury in consequence of firing made by Amir Muhammad. However as far as the case of rest of the applicants namely Muhammad Akbar and Dost Muhammad is concerned, I am of the considered opinion, since allegation against the above named two applicants is of ineffective firing, therefore, their case falls within the scope of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. as such applicants Nos.1 and 2 are found entitled for grant of bail. Thus I am inclined to allow bail to the applicants namely Muhammad Akbar and Dost Muhammad subject to furnishing of sureties in sum of Rs, 200,000 (rupees two lac only) each with PR of like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Upon furnishing of sureties they shall be released forthwith, in F.I.R. No,52 of 2010 registered with Police Station, Duki District Loralai, if not required in any other case or offence and the, application to the extent of applicant No,3 Amir Muhammad is hereby rejected.
9. ' Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
10. ' The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, which are not to influence merit of the case.