1. ' FAROOQ ALI CHANNA , J.--- Through instant application the applicant accused seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.12 of 2012 lodged by complainant Hussain Bux stating therein that his son and accused Zamir Hussain exchanged harsh words on cutting the grass. Thereafter on the date of incident his son Abdul Wahidd, Shahbaz Dino and nephew Mumtaz were sitting in Otaq when twenty persons armed with weapons identified by the complainant to be Zamir son of Shahnawaz Ali Hassan. Shahnawaz Mansoor all sons of Gul Bahar.. Ali Nawaz Muhammad Nawaz Muhammad Murad, Sadoro, Edian, Gulsher, Ali Sher, Shahan, Sadiq, Bashir, Mehar, Akhtiar, Aitbar, Dilsher and Saraho came there. On the instigation of accused Ali Hassan co-accused Zamir fired from his Kalashnikov at his son Abdul Waheed who after receiving fire shots fallen down. Accused Saraho and other caused butt' blows to Mumtaz on their cries and fire shot reports villagers rushed there, on seeing them accused escaped away. Complainant thereafter went to Police Station and lodged F.I.R.
2. ' I have heard Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Sangi learned counsel for the applicant. He contended that case is false and fabricated in which 20 persons from the same family has been involved although the specific allegation is against only Zamir who fired at deceased Seraho who caused injury to Mumtaz. This shows that the applicant is involved malafidely. He has further contended that entire male members of the Family accused persons are involved. Although it is alleged in the F.I.R. All the accused caused butt blows to Mumtaz but per medical certificate only one injury caused with blunt substance was on the person of injured Mumtaz. The allegation against the applicant is only of his presence at the place of incident. Learned counsel has further contended that three empty cartridges were recovered from the place of incident while there is no allegation of firing from the guns.
3. ' Learned A.P.-G. Has opposed the grant of application and contended that although specific role of causing murder of Abdul Waheed and injury to Mumtaz are attributed to Zamir and Saraho respectively but presence of applicant at the place of incident shows their common intention. He has further contended that the applicant is involved in heinous offence in which one person has lost his life and the other has sustained injury who has fully implicated present applicant/accused.
4. Learned A.P.-G. Has further contended that case has been challaned and it would be appropriate if directions are given to conclude the trial within shortest possible period.
5. I have heard arguments, perused the record. It is admitted position on record that allegation of causing the death of Abdul Waheed by fire shots is attributed to Zamir and injury to Mumtaz against Saraho, they both are not the applicants before this Court. The sole allegation against the present applicant is of his mere presence without participating in the incident. The F.I.R. Reveals that the entire male members of accused family have been involved in this case. So far the question, of common intention is concerned it is normally a question of further inquiry as held in the case reported as. Dilmurad v. The State (2010 SCM R 1178). In the circumstances and dicta laid down by the honourable Supreme Court bail is granted to the applicant Aetbar Kharos subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees One Lac) with PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.