' SHAH JEHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---The accused-petitioners are involved in case F.I.R. No,103 dated 7- 6-2012 under sections 302/ 324/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Banda Daud Shah, District Karak. They were refused bail by Judicial Magistrate Banda Daud Shah vide his order dated 26-6- 2012 and so by the learned ASJ Band Daud Shah vide his order dated 5-7-2012. Hence this petition.
2. Brief fact of the prosecution case as per narration of the complainant in the F.I.R. Is that on 7-6- 2012 at 00.10 hours he along with his deceased brother Jani Khan and Sher son of Nadir Khan and Lal Mahsood son of Rahim Khan had gone to the stock of Niaz Muhammad for loading of the vehicle with gypsums stones. After loading of the said vehicle they on their return towards their houses when reached the place of occurrence, they heard the voices of accused Nasreen and Yar Gul from the left side of the thoroughfare, saying that they should not be escaped and then firing started at them. Likewise firing also took place from the side, as a result of which Jani Khan was hit, succumbed to the injuries and died after a while on the spot, whereas he and his other companions escaped unhurt luckily. He has identified Romani Gul and Guli Khan alias Rahmatullah through their voices, while he has heard the names of Nasareen and Yar Gul. Motive for the offence was stated to be previous blood feud enmity between the parties. On this report of the complainant case vide F.I.R. No,103 dated 7-6-2012 under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. Was registered against the accused-petitioners and their co-accused at Police Station Banda Daud Shah District Karak.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record.
4. Record reveals that the instant occurrence had taken place at midnight time and the accused- petitioners have been charged by name in the F.I.R., but their source of identification is voices of the accused-petitioners. It is further evident from the contents of the report that all the accused- petitioners along with the absconding co-accused had been charged for effective firing at the deceased, but according to the post mortem report available on file the deceased had received only one inlet wound on his back side having its corresponding exit on front side of the chest.
Moreover, the alleged eye-witnesses have been shown in the site plan going ahead of the deceased on the thoroughfare, while they have been shown fired at from a slight back side from both the sides of the thoroughfare, but the deceased has received a single fire arm injury on his back side. In the contents of the F.I.R. Previous blood feud enmity between the parties has also been shown existing. Accused-petitioners after their arrest have neither made any confession nor anything incriminating in nature has been recovered at their pointation. Thus, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that there are reasonable ground for believing that the case of accused-petitioners requires further probe and as such their case falls within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Which entitles them to the concession of bail. Wisdom in this regard is sought from Muhammad Murad and others v. The State (2009 SCM R 348).
' Hence on account of the foregoing discussion, this application is accepted arid the accused- petitioners are allowed to be released on bail provided each one of them furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 (one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate.