1. The learned Advocate for .The applicant submitted, that there is an admitted enmity between the applicant and complainant side, which had resulted in one murder earlier. Besides this the learned Advocate for the applicant submitted, that there is a counter version of the incident in question as given in F. I. R. No. 45/82 and as such it will be necessary to hold further inquiry to determine which version is correct. In case the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the version given in the counter F. I. R. Is correct, there will be no case against the present applicant. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted, that although the name of the present applicant is mentioned in the F.
2. I. R., but in the counter F. I. R. Neither the presence of the applicant nor receipt of any injury by him are mentioned. The identification of the applicant is alleged to be of a moon-light from distance and as such this question also would require further inquiry at the stage of trial. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted, that on grant of interim bail by this Court, the applicant has appeared before the investigating agency and has been co-operating with them in the course of the investigation. Taking into consideration these facts the learned Advocate for the applicant submitted, that the case of the preset applicant and accused Muhammad Tufail and, Ishaq in the counter case stands on all fours and as such applicant is also entitled to grant of bail, on the same basis as this Court has earlier granted bail to accused Muhammad Tufail and Ishaq in Cr. Bail Application No. 741/82. In support of his various contentions the learned Advocate for the applicant relied upon cases reported in 1979 SC.MR168;1976 SCMR 391 and 1981 PCr.LJ 1125.
3. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the above bail application on the ground; that applicant has been named in the F. I. A. In question, which was promptly lodged and specific part for causing fire-arm injury to deceased Ali Hussain has been assigned to the present applicant, who after the incident successfully avoided his arrest, till he moved this Court with the present application during September, 1982. The learned Additional Advocate-General further sub--mitted, that the version given in the F. I. A. Has been corroborated prima facie, by the statements of prosecution witnesses under section 161, Cr. P. C. As well as by recoveries of empties from the roof of the Kitchen of the house of the complainant. The learned Additional Advocate-General submitted, that the assertion made by the learned Advocate for the applicant that P. Ws. Talib Hussain and Nazir Hussain in their statements under sec--tion 164; Cr. P.
4. C. Have not supported the prosecution case has no force. The learned Additional Advocate- General submitted that P. W. Nazir Hussain's statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. Is more or less the same as given under section 161, Cr. P. C. However P. W. Talib Hussain no doubt has resiled from his statement under section 161, Cr. P. C., while giving his statement under section 164 Cr. P. C., but this fact alone does not in any way affect the prosecution case, which is otherwise supported by other prosecution witnesses as well as by corroborative evidence of recoveries of empties from the house of the complainant.
5. I have considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the F. I. Rs. In both the cases as well as the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. As well as under section 164, Cr. P. C. In both the cases. I have also gone through the authorities cited by the learned Advocate for the applicant.
6. It is an admitted position that the counter version has been brought on record after the lapse of considerable time, for which no doubt an explanation has been given that the Police refused to record the counter F. I. R. It may further be noted that complainant in the counter F. I. A. Received the in--formation of the counter version from P. W. Muhammad Mureed in the counter case, which P. W. According to his own statement under section 161, Cr. P. C. Had visited the house of the complainant soon after the incident and had seen all the three deceased persons lying in the house of complainant. In spite of this P. W. Mohammad Mureed neither went to the Police Station nor to the complainant in the counter case on the very night, but went home and slept till next morning when he went and reported the incident, alleged to have been seen by him in the house of complainant Mohammad Tufail. There is no explanation at all why P. W. Mohammad Mureed having seen that deceased Ghulam Ali and Liaquat Ali being beaten by complainant party still did not go straight to the Police Station to save them from such beating. Besides this the version given in the F. I. A. In the case in question gets prima facie support from the recoveries of the empties from the roof of the Kitchen of the complainant Mohammad Tufail as well as from the fact that the complainant Mohammad Tufail and P. W. Ishaq both had number of injuries on their persons.
7. Keeping in view the above facts which are present on record, I do no consider this is a fit case for grant of bail before arrest and as such I dismiss the above application and cancel the interim bail granted to the applicant. However, applicant will be at liberty to move the fresh bail application after police has submitted challan against him, before the learned trial Court if he is so advised, on any ground as he may deem fit.
8. The authorities cited by the learned Advocate for the applicant are based on different facts and as such in my opinion are not applicable to the present case.
9. Any observation made by me in the above application as well as Cr. Bail Application No. 471/82 in respect of merits of either case, are tentative and shall not be binding on the learned trial Court, while disposing of both the cases on merits as well as at the time of consideration of any fresh application that may be moved by applicant Mohammad Sharif, before the said Court, after submission of challan.