' Khizar Hayat, petitioner, was reported against vide F.I.R. No,124, dated 27-12-1993 for an offence under section 302/324/337-F(vi)/148/149, P.P.C. With Police Station Miani District Sargodha.
2. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner alongwith his co-accused termed an unlawful assembly and thereby made a murderous assault upon the complainant party as a result of which Muhammad Hayat lost-his life.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no injury to the deceased or the P.W. Is attributed to the petitioner; only role of ineffective firing is attributed to him; nothing has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner; no empty has been recovered from the place of occurrence; there is a delay of five hours in lodging the F.I.R. When the police station is at a distance of 10-1/2 k.m. And that out of total 17 accused, 11 accused have been got discharged by the order of the D.I.-G. Which fact alone is sufficient to shake the veracity of the F.I.R. He next contended that according to F.I.R. The petitioner was carrying .12 bore gun while the recovery planted. Upon the petitioner is that of 7 mm rifle which in fact is his licensed gun. On the above premises, according to the learned counsel the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry.
4. Learned counsel for the State accompanied by the investigating Officer hotly opposed the petition and submitted that after finalisation of the investigation the challan has been submitted and as such there arises no occasion at this stage to release the petitioner on bail.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. According to the F.I.R. Itself, the only role attributed to the present petitioner is that of ineffective firing without injury either to the deceased or any of the P.Ws. Further, in the F.I.R., the petitioner has been shown armed with .12 bore gun while 7 mm rifle was allegedly recovered from him which too is licensed one, as such, the recovery of the weapon of offence looses its significance. The fact that out of 17 accused, 11 have been discharged also makes the petitioner's case one of further inquiry.
Reliance can safely be placed on Amjad etc. v. State 1982 SCM R 955. In these circumstances, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds. In the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Sargodha.