1. ' IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.---The applicants are facing trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar in Crime No,356 of 2009 registered at Police Station Mehar for offences punishable under sections 324, 353, P.P.C.
2. ' Precisely the facts of the prosecution case are that on 18-11-2009, complainant SIP S.H.O. Ali Nawaz Panhwar lodged F.I.R. At Police Station Mehar alleging therein that he is posted as S.H.O. At Police Station Mehar. On the day of incident he along with staff PC Manzoor Ali Khoso, on Motorcycle and A.S.-1. Buxian Khan Suhag on another Motorcycle with arms and ammunitions left Police Station on 18-11-2009 at 1830 hours for patrolling in the town and checking of the pickets, while patrolling when they reached at Telephone Exchange, it was about 2230 hours when they saw four armed persons having pistols in their hands were standing in the street, who were identified as Safdar son of Ali Gohar Janvri, Amir son of unknown Janvri resident of Mehar town and two unidentified persons who could be identified if seen again , the accused on seeing police party fired at them with intention to kill them and also run towards the WAPDA Office in the street, on firing noise other staff' HC Altaf Hussain Gorar, PC Zameer Ahmed, PC Muhammad Sajjan, PC Muhammad Yaqoob, HC Manzoor Ali, driver PC Ali Hyder also came there on mobile, who also saw the accused while running, due to public persons the police did not fire at the accused and hence the accused succeeded to run away, therefore the complainant came at Police Station and lodged such F.I.R.
3. ' The applicants had applied for pre-arrest bail before the trial Court and interim pre-arrest bail was granted to them on 5-12-2009 but the same was recalled by the trial Court vide order dated 7- 1-2010. Hence the instant application.
4. ' Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Miss Rubina Dhamrah learned State counsel and perused the record.
5. ' Learned counsel for the applicants contended that this is ineffective firing and none has received any injury at .The time of alleged incident. He further contended that it is yet to be seen at the trial whether the applicants have any intention to commit Qatl-e-Amd of police party. In the circumstances he contended that the interim pre-arrest bail granted to applicants by this Court may be confirmed.
6. ' Miss. Rubina Dhamrah, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed for confirmation of pre- arrest bail to the applicants and argued that the applicants have attacked upon the police party in the midst of city and no mala fide or ulterior motive is shown in the bail application.
7. ' She further contended that the applicants have not made out a case for pre-arrest bail.
8. ' I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant record. Admittedly none has received any injury in the attack. It is yet to be seen at the trial that whether any attack for murdering assault committed by applicants or not and applicants in their bail application have clearly mentioned mala fide and ulterior motive on the part of the police. It is sufficient that the applicants have pleaded in their bail application about the mala fide intention and ulterior motive of police. This incident according to F.I.R. Has taken place mid of city but no independent witness is cited as mashir. In these circumstances. I have no hesitation to confirm the pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants on 1-2-2010 on the same terms and conditions. Bail Application stands disposed of