1. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case, according to F.I.R. are that an altercation took place between the complainant party and the applicants side at about 8-00 a.m. The complainant was going on his motorcycle for his job at about 2-30 p.m., when the applicants alongwith one Najju Masih attacked him. Najju and the applicant Sarwar Masih were armed with a .12 bore pistol and they fired at 'Havela Masih' who sustained pellet injuries. The allegation against the applicant, lqbal Masih is that of accompanying the co-accused on both the occasions, and declaring that the helper of the complainant should not escape. Such F.I.R. was lodged on 30th March, 1984 at Johrabad Police Station, Karachi and the police after usual investigation sent up the applicants along with co-accused Najju Masih to stand trial under section 307/34, P.P.C.
2. ' The application for bail was moved before the learned Vith Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi who by his order, dated 6-5-1984 rejected it.
3. ' The learned counsel for the appellants contends that there is no allegation against the applicant lqbal Masih for having participated in the commission of offence except that he disclosed to the accused party to see that the complainant's helper did not escape. It has been further contended that the case of the applicant, Sarwar Masih is also distinguishable as there is no recovery from him in spite of the fact that he remained with the police for a period of fortnight during the course of investigation of the case. He places his reliance on 1983 PCr.LJ 2214; 1981 P Cr. L J 1190 and 1981 P Cr. L J 1232.
4. ' Mr. A.A. Muhammad ally the learned counsel for the State, opposes grant of bail to the applicants on the grounds that the incident being of a broad-daylight, applicants' active participation on both the occasions and admitted enmity with the complainant they are equally responsible for the commission of offence.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants as well as State. There is no doubt that the allegations against the applicant, lqbal Masih are such that his case is distinguishable from the co-accused Sarwar Masih. There being no allegation of active participation on his part, except of course his tall talk that the complainant's helper should not escape are not sufficient reasons to refuse bail to him. I, therefore, allow his application. He shall be released on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs, 2,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. I am fortified in my views by observations in all the above-cited cases. As far as the case of Sarwar Masih is concerned, there is a definite allegation of firing against him, therefore, it will be premature to appreciate the extent of his participation in commission of offence. His bail application is, therefore, dismissed.