' KHALID MEHMOOD, J.---Petitioners, namely, Abdur Rahman, Falak Sher, Muhammad Bakhsh, Muhammad Altaf, Sadaqat Khan and Muhammad Khalil, having failed to secure their release on bail in the lower Courts, have approached this Court for seeking the same relief.
2. Short facts of the instant case are that the accused/petitioners were charged in case F.I.R. No,127 dated 10-6-2011 registered under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station, Dera Town D.I.Khan.
In the F.I.R. Accused/petitioners were charged by the complainant for causing injury to him and Alam Sher.
3. Complainant was served .Through Superintendent Central Jail, D.I.Khan and later on last date of hearing complainant side Khanu Bibi and Aslam son of the deceased appeared and requested for adjournment on the ground that they have not engaged their counsel. Today nemo present for the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioners contended that prior to the registration of present case, a case under sections 365/324/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered against the accused by one disinterested person namely Abubakar vide F.I.R. No,126 dated 10-6-2011 which was lodged at 0730 hours just after the occurrence whereas the present F.I.R. Has been lodged at 1210 hours and the time of occurrence has been shown 0700 to 1145 hours. He further contended that in the F.I.R. They have clearly mentioned that at 7-00 hours Muhammad Khalil accused/ petitioner came along with his other companion and fired at them but the complainant did not lodge the report regarding the said occurrence promptly rather had taken Muhammad Khalil accused/petitioner along with them.
He argued that this story corroborate the version of the accused/petitioner mention in F.I.R. No,126 which was promptly lodged by disinterested person. He further argued that Alam Sher deceased was arrested by police from his house and from his possession one Kalashnikov along with bandolier, two magazines having ten rounds of 7.62 and one hand-grenade were recovered.
Similarly from possession of injured Shamsher one Kalashnikov along with bandolier, two magazines having 16 rounds of 7.62 bore were recovered. He also referred to the site plan, wherein the position of accused/petitioner have not been shown and the identification of the accused/ petitioners as per version of complainant in the sugarcane crops was impossible and nothing incriminating articles were recovered from the spot. He submitted that there is only one injury on the body of deceased which was on the left leg and due to bleeding the death was caused. He further submitted that the delay in the present case clearly indicates that after due deliberation and consultation the present case has been cooked up and die entire family members of the accused/petitioners are booked in the present case a counterblast of the case F.I.R. No,126.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel argued that the accused/petitioner Muhammad Khalil has been arrested on the spot and all the accused/petitioners are directly charged in the F.I.R. He contended that the motive for the occurrence has clearly been mentioned in the F.I.R. And being a heinous offence the accused/ petitioners are not entitled to the concession of bail.
6: Arguments heard and record perused.
7. Perusal of record reveals that F.I.R. No,126 was lodged by one Abubakar who is disinterested person and this fact has not been shaken by complainant. In that FIR the abduction of Muhammad Khalil by the complainant party has been alleged by disinterested witness while he was going on motorcycle, with accused Muhammad Khalil. The complainant in present case has admitted in the present case that 7-00 a.m. Accused came on a motorcycle along with his unknown companion and fired at them. The 'said unknown person was in, fact Abubakar who promptly lodged the report against six persons for abduction of Khalil vide F.I.R. No,126. The time of occurrence 7-00 a.m. Has been admitted by the complainant/respondent the same for which a prior and prompt report has been lodged by a disinterested person. The delay regarding lodging of F.I.R. In the present case when already case against the complainant party was registered at 0730 hours the consultation and deliberation for chargingl of accused/petitioners cannot be ruled out at this stage. It is also astonishing fact of the present case that the complainant himself charged Muhammad Khalil accused/petitioner for firing at them at 0700 hours, instead of promptly lodging the report against the accused he had taken the law in their own hands by taking into custody Muhammad Khalil who was shown to be injured by other side/petitioners side. The story narrated by respondent/ complainant prima facie does not appeal to a prudent mind rather confirms the allegations levelled against them in F.I.R. No,
126. As there are two versions of the present occurrence and there are reasonable grounds to exist that the accused/petitioners have not committed the offence and it is a case of further inquiry.
8. In the light of the above circumstances, the accused/petitioners are allowed to be released on bail provided they furnish bail bonds in, the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lac) with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, D.I.Khan. The sureties must be local, reliable and men of means. My this tentative assessment will not effect the merit of the case and mind of the trial Court.