1. ' HABIB-UR-REHMAN SHAIKH, J.-By this application the applicant has sought bail in Crime No,92 of 2011 of Police Station, Dubbar registered for offence under sections 302, 337H(2), 34, P.P.C.
2. ' An application on behalf of the present applicant was moved before the trial Court but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (H), Sukkur, vide order dated 12-6-2012 on the ground that the present applicant in the commission of offence by sharing the common intention with co-accused viz Wali Muhammad which has resulted the death of deceased Allah Dad.
3. ' In nut shell the facts of the case are that the incident took place on 7-12-2011 at about 0I00 hours night and the F.I.R. Was lodged on 8-12-2011 at 1530 hours at Police Station, Sangrar and at 1630 hours at Police Station, Dubbar, by complainant Ali Dino alleging therein that, his father was murdered by Hazoor Bux Mirani. No name of the present applicant transpires in the F.I.R. And that after four days of the incident on 12-12-2011 further statement of the complainant was recorded in which he has clearly mentioned that accused Gul Hassan alias Papu Hakro and Inayatullah Panhwar made aerial firing in order to create harassment, from their respective weapons without any source of information.
4. ' The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the name of the present applicant, does not transpire in the F.I.R. And that after four days of the alleged incident further statement of the complainant was recorded, in which it is alleged by the complainant that the present applicant along with co-accused Inayatullah made aerial firing in order to harass, which is general in nature.
5. He requested that the case of the present applicant requires further enquiry and the applicant be enlarged on bail.
6. ' Learned. A.P.-G. Appearing for the State has frankly conceded to the grant of bail, on the ground that no name is mentioned in the F.I.R., but after four days of the alleged incident, the further statement of the complainant was recorded, in which it is alleged against the present applicant that/he and co-accused Inayatullah made aerial firing, which is general allegation.
7. ' Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.-G. For the State and perused the impugned order and other material available on record with the assistance of the learned A.P.-G.
8. In view of the above position that the name of present applicant does not transpire in the F.I.R. And in the further statement of the complainant, general allegation of aerial firing against the present applicant and co-accused Inayatullah has been made, which was recorded after four days of the alleged incident and the no objection extended by the learned A.P.-G. To the grant of bail, I allow this application and grant bail to the applicant as his case requires further enquiry. He shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
9. ' Bail application stands disposed of .Along with listed application.