1. ' Three applicants who are present in the Court have applied for bail before arrest in a case in which they are to be tried alongwith others for offence under sections 307, 148, 149, P.P.C. And 13-D Arms Ordinance. From the applicants two are medical doctors by profession. Interim bail was granted to them vide order dated 5-9-1989. Interim bail is not confirmed for the following reasons.
2. ' Incident took place on 16-7-1989 at 7-45 p.m. On the road outside Citizens Club, Kamber, District Larkana. Complainant is Qurban All Magsi who is an eye-witness. Prosecution proposes to examine nine eye-witnesses from whom six eye-witnesses are those who have been injured in the attack.
3. Names of 11 accused persons alongwith their weapons including three applicants are specifically mentioned in F.I.R. Out of 11 accused persons four were armed with guns, three with pistols, three with Lathis and one with knife. Applicant Dr. Aligul was armed with pistol and the other two accused persons Dr. Nazir Shaikh and Dur Muhammad Burriro were armed with guns. It is stated in F.I.R. That applicant Nazir Shaikh on seeing the complainant party declared that they had been abusing them behind their back and instigated his co-accused not to spare. After that first co-accused Aftab Shaikh inflicted knife injury on the abdomen of Saeedur Rahman. Then all other accused persons opened attack and fired from their weapons in which six persons from the complainant side became injured and their injuries are medically proved.
4. ' It is urged that applicants are entitled to the grant of bail before arrest on two grounds. Firstly that there is inordinate delay of 18 hours in filing of F.I.R. When distance between police station and Vardat is 2 furlongs. In there is explanation given by the complainant for the delay which is to the effect that there were as many as six injured persons, who were all bleeding from their injuries. The complainant alongwith Zafar and Noor Hassan took injured persons to the medical officer Kamber hospital who gave a letter to them for taking injured persons to C.M.C. Hospital, Larkana. All the injured were taken to that hospital where surgical operation could not be performed on Saeedur Rehman at night which was performed next morning. After that complainant left behind other witnesses in the hospital and came to the police station to lodge the F.I.R. Now if this explanation is not satisfactory then complainant can be available for the purpose of cross-examination in the trial Court when his deposition would be recorded. At present it can be said that there are reasonable grounds to believe that applicants are guilty of offence alleged against them because their names are mentioned in F.I.R. And active role is assigned to them which is to the effect that they used their weapons and fired from them in the joint attack in which six persons were injured out of whom injuries on Saeedur Rahman were declared grievous in nature. Additionally there is also allegation of instigation against applicant Nazir Shaikh.
5. ' In support of bail plea reliance is placed on the case of Abdul Hameed Khan and another v. State 1978 P Cr. L J 150 which is misplaced for the reason that in reported case medical evidence was at variance with ocular evidence and further F.I.R. Was lodged after delay of 4 hours. Another ground was that guns recovered from petitioners were not connected with firing and injuries of the deceased and injured P.Ws. Due to lack of expert report. Another case relied upon in favour of grant of bail is of Muhammad Amin and another v. State reported in 1987 SCMR 1522 which is also not applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that in the reported case no specific role was attributed to the petitioner in F.I.R. And his case was found at par with other co-accused who were already granted pre-arrest bail by Sessions Judge. For the facts and reasons stated above' I am not satisfied that it is a fit case for grant of bail before arrest on the above ground.
6. ' Second ground on which bail plea is urged is that eye-witnesses claim to have identified assailants in the electric light but on behalf of applicants certificate of WAPDA is produced which is placed on the record and according to the counsel for applicants there was load-shedding at the relevant time and it was dark and as such eye-witnesses were not able to see the incident and identify the culprits. This certificate is on half sheet of paper which is addressed in type to Dr. Manzoor All Shaikh as certificate issued in response to his application dated 10-8-1989. It is mentioned in the certificate that there was fault in 11 KV. City feeder on 16-7-1989 from 7-20 p.m.
7. Which was cleared on the same date at 10-10 p.m. Nature of the fault was that conductor was broken. This certificate is issued by incharge, 66/11 KV. Grid Station, WAPDA, Kamber. It is not on prescribed form but on plain half paper sheet. Material is typed and there is rubber seal of Incharge Grid Station mentioned above. It does not say that there was load-shedding or on account of the defect there was darkness. It does not say that there was darkness at the time of incident at the place of incident. In any case this is a defence plea and defence will get an opportunity to produce this document and would satisfy the Court with regard to authenticity of this certificate. For the time being it can be said that this certificate as such with incomplete information is not sufficient to falsify claim of the witnesses to have seen the incident and identified the accused persons including applicants particularly when graphic account of incident is narrated in F.I.R. With names of accused persons and their weapons and all other relevant details.
8. I am also of the view that in spite of the fact that from the applicants, two are doctors, even then it is not a fit case for grant of bail before arrest because weapons have not been recovered from applicants which have been allegedly used in the attack. Six persons have been injured and there are medical certificates in support of those injuries. Most of the injuries have been caused by fire- arms. In such circumstances let the law take its own course. Bail before arrest is a concession of law which is not to be granted invariably in each case in which such request is made. Every case is to be considered keeping in view peculiar circumstances and facts of that case. The present case is not a fit case for grant of bail before arrest. Bail is not confirmed and bail application is dismissed.