' MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, J.---Granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel today. Initially Dr.Azizur Rahman who had conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased Nooruddin appeared before the court and submitted that he had used the words "gunshot wounds" in the post-mortem report in general terms and not in specific terms and what he meant was that the deceased had suffered firearm injuries. He read out the details of the injuries from the report in dimensions and submitted that since the injuries are of lesser diameter; therefore, his opinion, on the basis of his experience, is that they are pistol wound. Since the learned doctor appears to be well-versed in his job and is an Expert, I therefore, accept his statement and hold that as far as this contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel on the last date of hearing is concerned, it had occurred due to the use of general terms "gunshot wounds" in the post-mortem report and since the author of the post- mortem report has already stated that what he meant was firearm injury wounds; therefore, this contradiction does not exist and the onus passes on to the learned counsel for the applicant to prove that these injuries were not inflicted by the pistol bullets. The learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contentions has relied upon the following judgments:
(1) 2007 PCr.LJ 987, (2) 1980 SCMR 784, (3) 2008 MLD 1740 and (4) 2001 PCr.LJ 110.
' The Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has also made comprehensive arguments and has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments:
(1) PLD 2009 Karachi 265 and (2)1996 SCMR 555.
He has also relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of co-accused Jamshed Ali son of Ghulam Ali by its order dated 27-3-2009 in Criminal Bail Application No,S-336 of 2009 wherein this court had dismissed the bail application of the co-accused. He has; therefore. Pleaded the rule of consistency. However, after hearing the learned counsel and examining the record of the case, I have come to the conclusion that there are a number of contradictions in the F.I.R and the statements of witnesses and therefore, further enquiry is needed to connect the applicants with the said crime; therefore, for reasons to follow, I admit the applicants to bail subject to their furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,250,000 (two lac fifty thousand) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.