1. ' ABDUL MAJID KHANZADA, J.--- The brief facts leading to this application are that on 1-6.1995 at 6 a.m. Complainant Mithal lodged his report at Police Station Golo Daro being Crime No,11/1995 stating therein that he is Zamindar and has purchased 210 Jareebs of land from the present applicant/accused Muhammad Sulleman son of Dost Muhammad in the year 1974. He has further stated that Muhammad Sulleman had approached complainant and has asked him to enhance the amount as he has sustained loss by selling the land, which the complainant refused and filed a civil suit and got the stay order. It is further alleged that on 1.6-1995 at 2.00 a.m, while he alongwith driver Fida Hussain, Ghulam Hussain, Ghulam Mustafa were at their Dera and were running Thresher, they saw on the light of the tractor, Sikandar, Suhno, present applicant Abdul Aziz, Bakhshoo, Muhammad Suleman, Abdul Ghafoor Jatoi and two unknown culprits out of them Suhno and present applicant Abdul Aziz had klashnikovs in their hands and the rest had guns. It is also the case of complainant that Suleman gave Hakkal and asked his companions not to spare complainant party, on which accused armed with klashnikovs and guns directly fired at the complainant party and the complainant party fell down and concealed themselves in the heaps of unthrashed wheat and raised cries which attracted Abdul Nabi and Chhutto who also saw the accused, party firing. Seeing villagers accused went away, as such he went to his brother Haji Shahbaz Khan Seelro and narrated the facts who asked him to lodge the report. After registration of F.I.R. Police after investigation arrested accused Abdul Aziz and one unknown now known as Khanzada have been sent up in the Court of S.TA., Shikarpur.
2. ' We have heard both the counsel. The learned A.A.-G. Concedes.
3. ' The main contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant are that the name of one of the accused namely Abdul Latif does not appear in the F.I.R.; that there is ineffective firing; that incident has taken place in the night and the identification of the accused in the, light of the tractor is a very weak piece of evidence and cannot be relied; that no klashnikov has been recovered and the klashnikov has been introduced to give the jurisdiction to the S.T.A. Court; that no weapon whatsoever has been recovered; that prior to this one of the applicant/accused namely Abdul Aziz has lodged the report being Crime No,10/1995 under section 324, Q&D Ordinance against the complainant party at same police station and this is a counterblast. Counsel for the applicant has relied on 1994 SCM R 393.
4. We have heard the arguments of both the counsel and with their assistance have perused the record. We have failed to understand and on our enquiry even the learned AA.-G. Could not give the satisfactory reply as in the F.I.R. There is no allegation that any of the accused was armed with rifle but the memo. Of recovery shows 150 empty shells of klashnikovs, 38 empties of rifle and 95 of guns as to how the empties of rifle were secured from the scene of offence when no one was armed with rifle. We also fail to understand that when 150 empties of klashnikov, 38 of rifle and 95 of guns have been recovered but not a single injury has been caused to the complainant or his witnesses. We are of the view that it is a fit case for further inquiry. We accordingly grant bail to the applicant/accused in the sum of Rs, one lac and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.