' This order shall dispose of Cr1. Misc. No, 5014-B of 2016 filed by Sana Ullah and Asif alias Kadoo. Crl.
Misc. No, 3224-B of 2016 filed by Muhammad Waleed alias Muhammad Toheed, Muhammad Adnan and Muhammad Arshad and Crl. Misc. No, 3227-B of 2016 filed by Abdul Hameed for grant of post arrest bail in case FIR No, 37 dated 1.2.2016, registered under Sections 452/ 354/ 353/ 186/ 337-F(iv)/ 337- F(i)/ 337-A(i)/ 337-L(ii)/ 148/ 149, PPC and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at Police Station City Samundri, District Faisalabad.
2. The brief facts of the FIR are that the petitioners along with their co-accused while armed with their respective weapons obstructed the police officials in discharging their official duties, made ineffective firing, gave a severe beating to them, snatched their valuables and documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. No person including petitioners have been nominated in the FIR. The petitioners have been introduced as accused in this case through supplementary statements dated 1.2.2016 and 8.2.2016 recorded by the complainant in which no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners.
5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General submits .That nothing was recovered from Abdul Hameed and Sana Ullah (Petitioners) during the interrogation. He further submits that allegedly 'Dandas' were recovered on pointing out of Muhammad Waleed, Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Adnan (Petitioners). Evidentiary value of this recovery will be determined by the trial Court after recording of evidence. Muhammad Tariq Tahir, Ijaz, Manzoor Masih, Sajjad Masih, Muhammad Awais, Muhammad Tauseef aliqs Toni, Khalid Mahmood, Sultan Mahmood and Asif Mahmood co- accused have already been granted post arrest bail. The role of the present petitioners is at par with that of their co-accused. Reliance is placed upon Muhammad Daud and another v. The State and another (2008 SCM R 173).
6. Evidentiary value of the video clips will be determined by the trial Court after recording of the evidence.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has no objection for acceptance of these petitions. As reiterated above the case of the petitioners is one of further inquiry.
8. For the foregoing reasons, all these petitions are accepted and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.