' The petitioner remained unsuccessful in obtaining bail from the learned lower Courts in case F.I.R.
No, 17, dated 12-1-1994 under section 324/34, Qisas and Diyat/109/113, P.P.C. And hence he has approached this Court for the same relief.
2. Mir Baz complainant reported the incident of firing at him by the three brothers Hazrat Ali, Farzand Ali and Sadaqat Ali and stated that he was hit with the fire of Hazrat Ali with Klashnikov. Ali Haider has been named as witness in the F.I.R.
3. I heard both the learned counsel in support of their contentions and went through the record.
4. It is to be noted that neither in the F.I.R. Nor in the statement of the eye-witness Ali Haider the present petitioner has been involved in any manner in the offence. Farzand Ali one of the accused named in the F.I.R. Was arrested on 12-1-1994 and his confession was recorded on 18-1-1994. In this confession the petitioner has been shown as instrumental in the managed arrest of the three accused in a case under section 13, A.O. And also in arranging for hiring assailants for the murder of the complainant. It is thus manifest that in the F.I.R. Hazrat Ali has been charged for effective while another two brothers for ineffective firing at the complainant whereas it is alleged in the confession statement by one of the accused that they were in confinement in jail in a case under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance and that it was a hired assassin who had perpetrated the offence. The prosecution does not seriously deny the arrest of the accused named in the F.I.R. In case under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. At this stage there are two versions of the incident and it will be determined at the trial after scrutiny through evidence as to how the occurrence took place and who was the real culprit. Besides the delayed confession of the co-accused there is no other tangible evidence to support the charge against the petitioner. Moreover the challan in the case has been completed and, therefore, the petitioner is no more required to associate with the investigation.
5. I, therefore, deem it proper to allow petitioner bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount and to the satisfaction of the Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate.