' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---Applicant is booked in Crime No,124/2010 under sections 302, 324, 504, 34, P.P.C. Of Police Station Saeedabad.
2. In the first place, applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad who dismissed the bail application of the applicant per order dated 5-7-2011 and against the aforesaid order, present bail application has been filed.
3. ' The facts as set out in the F.I.R. Are that on 16-9-2010 complainant, his father Muhammad Urs and cousin Ali Sher, Muhammad Umer were sitting in front of the hotel of Mubeen Lakho. At about 1530 hours, accused Khamon alias Lala armed with pistol, Noor Ali (present applicant) having .T.T Pistol and Muhammad Din armed with DBBL gun came and Khamon alias Lala abused the complainant and made straight fire which hit the complainant's father Muhammad Urs who subsequently died. It is further alleged that present applicant also made fire upon the complainant party but no one was injured thereafter, F.I.R. Was lodged as stated above.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that present applicant has been implicated in this case falsely due to previous enmity. He submits that statements under. Section 161, Cr.P.C. Of prosecution witnesses who were allegedly present at the scene, were recorded after one week. He also says that no recovery was effected from the applicant, however after remaining in custody of the police for a week's time, the recovered pistol was foisted upon the applicant by police. He further says that about one year has passed the applicant is in custody and only charge has been framed. He further says that allegations in the F.I.R: are general in nature and no injury alleged to have been caused by the present applicant to anyone. He says that role of ineffective firing has been attributed to the present applicant. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the case of Yaroo v. The State (2004 SCM R 864) and Faraz Akram v. The State (1999 SCM R 1360).
5. On the other hand, Mrs. Razia Ali Zaman Khan, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail. She submitted that applicant is fully connected with the commission of offence. He was present at the spot and has made firing with his weapon. She also says that version in the F.I.R. Is fully corroborated by the prosecution witnesses in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. She says that applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of bail. She has placed reliance on the case of Shoukat Illahi v. Javed Iqbal and others (2010 SCM R 966) and Mulo Ahmed v. The State (2011 M LD 1171).
6. Learned A. P . -G. Also opposed the grant of bail and has submitted that applicant is fully connected with the commission of offence. He says that ballistic report supports the version of prosecution. He further says that no doubt applicant has not caused any injury but he was present at the scene with intention to commit criminal offence. He says that version in the F.I.R. Is fully corroborated by the prosecution witnesses. In the circumstances, learned A.P.-G. Says that applicant is not entitled to bail.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record as also the case-law cited at bar.
8. It is an admitted position that one person has died during the incident and as per the F.I.R.
Muhammad Urs died due to firing made by Khamon alias Lala but no injury whatsoever has been alleged to have been caused by the present applicant to anyone. It is also an admitted position that recovery of pistol from the applicant was not effected at the time of his arrest but such weapon was alleged to have been recovered by police on the pointation of applicant after remaining in custody for about seven days. It is also admitted position that statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of the P. Ws were recorded after delay of 16 days. It is settled law that at the bail stage deeper appreciation of record cannot be gone into but only' "tentative assessment is to be made just to find out as to whether the applicant/accused is prima facie connected with the commission of offence or not. Applying the above test to the case in hand, it will be seen that no injury appears to have been caused by the present applicant to anyone. All the above facts made the case of prosecution doubtful and false implication of the present applicant/accused cannot be ruled out which requires further enquiry in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the applicant is, admitted to bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,.100,000 (One lac) and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
9. As pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that about 12 months have passed and only charge has been framed but the trial has not progressed. In the circumstances, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within four months from the receipt of this order under intimation to this Court. Learned trial Court is also directed to submit monthly progress report of this case through Additional Registrar of this Court.
' In the above terms, the bail application stand disposed of.