1. ' This is a petition for bail moved by petitioners Patrik and Fahim who are accused in a case under sections 402, 309, 307, 353, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Latifabad, Hyderabad vide F.I.R. No, 32 of 1988.
2. ' The prosecution case as set out in the F.I.R. Is that S.H.O. Latifabad alongwith his staff were on patrolling duty on 23-1-1988 at about 20-30 hours when they received information on wireless that near Mama Iqbal High School certain armed persons were firing at the patrolling party and accordingly reached the ground of school and saw that police constables Nabi Bux and Qayoom Bux had caught hold of the armed persons viz. Co-accused Nazar Ali. And Arif who were shown to be armed with pistols whereas the petitioner No,1 and two other co-accused are shown to be armed with pistols and petitioner No, 2 Fahim armed with .7 mm rifle and were trying to rescue the other two accused persons and resorted to firing and were arrested and the arms were secured from their possession. The present petitioners filed petition for bail which was rejected by me by order dated 10-3-1988. The petitioners also filed petition for leave to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed by order dated 16-6-1988 as time-barred.
3. ' Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 5-3-1988 the present petitioners were enlarged on bail in a case registered under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance. He further submitted that the Mohalla people have sworn affidavit that no such incident had taken place. He lastly submitted that uptill today no charge has been framed.
4. ' On the other hand Mr. A.A. Muliammadally, learned Additional Advocate-General has submitted that the petition for bail is not maintainable. He has placed reliance on a case reported in PLD 1986 SC 173.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The ground, namely that the Mohalla people have stated that no incident had taken place is not available to the petitioners now as the same did exist at the time when the first application was made. The mere acceptance of their bail application in the case registered under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance also does not help the petitioners. The dictum laid down in the above case by Humble Supreme Court is applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above dictum, the learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the present petition on merits. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, I direct the learned trial Court to record the evidence of two prosecution witnesses within a period of one month from today and send progress report to this Court. It would, however, be open to the petitioners to move for bail before the trial Court after recording of evidence of the two prosecution witnesses if they so desire.