' SYED AFSAR SHAH, J.---Having unsuccessful in obtaining bail from the two courts below, accused/petitioner Abidullah involved in case F.I.R. No, 293, dated 12-7-2013, under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. Of Police Station Ghoriwala, Bannu, has come up to this Court for the same relief.
2. The allegations against the accused/petitioner, as per F.I.R. Referred above, are that he on 12-7- 2013, at about 1820 hours, along with his co-accused duly armed with fire-arm at Bannu D.I. Khan road within the limits of Taji Kalla, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of Malik Zaman by firing at him and also inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant, Atifullah.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner that the present case is a cross-case to F.I.R. No, 295 dated 12-7-2013, and that the question as to who was the aggressor and who the aggressed upon is the question, which could be determined at the trial. He further added that, there is no independent witness of the occurrence and again the contents of the F.I.R. Are inconsistent not only with the medical evidence, but also with the entries made in the site plan. He went on the say that the accused/petitioner is innocent and has been charged by the complainant falsely. Developing his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner further added that in the instant case, the investigation is complete and as such accused/ petitioner is no longer required to the local police for further investigation, hence, on this score too his case is arguable for the purpose of bail.
4. As against that learned counsel for the complainant assisted by DAG, argued that in view of the promptly lodged F.I.R. Statement of the eye-witnesses and recovery of crime empties from the place of Wardaat, the case of the accused/petitioner comes within the limbs of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And hence, is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. It appears from the record available on file that in this case the occurrence took place on 12-7- 2013 at about 1820 hours, whereas the report has been lodged on the same day at about 1850 hours. Atifullah Khan is the complainant of the present case and he has charged the accused/petitioner along with his co-accused for commission of the offence. It is further evident from the record that Abidullah, the petitioner/accused is the complainant of case F.I.R. No, 295 of the same date, place and almost of the same time, meaning thereby that, there are counter- versions between the parties and in the attending circumstances of the case, it is yet to be determined that as to who was the aggressor and who the aggressed upon, as presently no exception could be taken with respect to the position stated above. Wisdom is also derived from case titled "Abdul Hameed v. Zahid Hussain etc." (2011 SCM R 606) and "Muhammad Shahzad Saddique v. The State and another" (PLD 2009 SC 58).
7. In view of above, accused/petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds, to the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (One lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa Judicial Magistrate.