This bail petition has been moved on behalf of Syed Farooq Shah who stands charged in a case registered against him under section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code al. Police Station, Tank, vide F.I.R. No.312, dated 17-7-1990.
2. In the F.I.R. Of occurrence lodged by Rafiqullah Khan, Superintendent of the Examination Hall for Degree Examination at Tank, an explosion took place in the Examination Hall on 17-7-19X1 at 11-45 a.m. Which not only shook the building and damaged the furniture, but also caused injuries to the first informant and three others of his staff members.
3. S. Zafar Abbas Zaidi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends: firstly, that the petitioner is, innocent and has been maliciously involved in this case, because he declined to buy his -release and, secondly, that there is absolutely nothing on the file to even remotely connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence except that he was one of those 20/30 candidates who were checked for copying as per the allegation.
4. As against this, Mr. Abdul Latif Khan Baluch, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the plea of bail raised on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that he has been charged in the supplementary statement of Nekam Khan, Assistant Superintendent of the Hall. .
5. I have considered the respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
6. As is evident from the F.I.R. Itself, the complainant has not charged any one in his report for the explosion. Even Nekam Khan P.W. Who charged the petitioner in his supplementary statement given after about 20 days of the occurrence had not named him in his earlier statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Except for this supplementary statement of one of the P.Ws., which is primarily based upon the hypothesis that the petitioner was one of those 20/30 candidates in the Hall who were-checked for copying and was giving grudging looks to the complainant, there is no material available on the record to, prima facie, connect the petitioner with the offence with which he had been charged.
7. From the tentative assessm ent of the evidence so far collected by the prosecution, I find that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has committed the offence with which he has been charged, but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt. In consequence, the petitioner is admitted to hail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds, in the sum of Rs. One lac (Rs.1,00,000) with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, D.T. Khan.
N.H.Q./1354/P