1. ' This order will dispose off bail application filed on behalf of the above-named applicants/accused who have been booked to face their trial alongwith two other co-accused namely Jaffar alias Papoo, Mir Jat and Deeno Mari under sections 302, 337-F, 34, P.P.C. Read with section 17(4), Hudood Ordinance vide F.I.R. Bearing No,31/1995 registered at Police Station Saeedabad.
2. ' Briefly the facts of the prosecution case as narrated by the complainant Khabar son of Allah Bux by Caste Bughio are that they are four brothers each of them namely Ramzan, Gul Muhammad, Haroon and their cousin Allah Bux is also residing with them in the same boundary. That they had sent their people and camels for taking the wheat from the land, but they made delay in coming back on which cousin Allah Bux, nephew Shoukat Ali and Hari/tenant Leemo proceeded towards the land on the motor-cycle to look at the abovementioned persons and complainant and his brothers Ramzan and Gul Muhammad were sitting in the Oataq and at about 9 O'clock in the night Allah Bux returned back who disclosed that he, Shoukat Ali and Hari Leemo were going on the motorcycle on the land and at about 8-30 p.m. When they reached on the link road near Zer Pir Village Tayyab D ,hiri, they saw four armed bandits on the light of motor-cycle and identified each of them namely Jaffar alias Papoo, MirJat was armed with single barrel gun, Mitho Rind, armed with pistol, Deeno Mari and Hubdar Leghari were armed with hatchets. They all encircled their motor- cycle and stopped the motor-cycle and directed them to get down on the Katcha path, but he replied that he will not take his motor-cycle on the Katcha path, on which Deeno Mari inflicted the back side of the hatchet blow on his back and he tried to catch hold of the hatchet on which Jaffar alias Papoo Mirjat who was armed with gun fired straight shot from his gun which directly hit Shoukat Ali and due to this Shoukat Ali fell down and Mitho Rind fired which was missed. Thereafter, the accused persons on seeing light of another vehicle which was coming from front side ran away towards Eastern side. Thereafter, they saw that Shoukat Ali had received fire injuries on his chest and on the right side of his kidney and so also there were bullet injuries on other parts of the body and the blood was oozing and was dead. Thereafter, he left Hari Leemo to guard the dead body of Shoukat Ali and he went to the complainant and disclosed him about the incident that on receiving such news from Allah Bux, he, Rarrrzan, Gul Muhammad and other villagers reached on the place of incident and saw that Shoukat Ali had received pellet injuries of the gun on the chest and other parts of the body and was dead. Thereafter, he left the witnesses over the dead body of his nephew Shoukat Ali and went to police station to lodge the report that the above-named .Accused persons with intention to commit robbery were standing there and stopped the motor-cycle but on the intervention of Allah Bux, Deeno Mari inflicted the back of hatchet to Allah Bux and Jaffar alias Papoo Mirjat fired straight shot from the gun to Shoukat Ali and murdered him, while Mitho Rind fired straight shot from pistol but it was missed.
3. ' It is contended by the learned Advocate for the applicants/accused that the applicants/accused have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and further that none of the complainant party have stated that the accused persons were known to the complainant party, identification parade was not held therefore, false implication of the accused persons cannot be ruled out. The learned Advocate further contended that no fatal injury is attributed to Mitho and Hubdar Ali, therefore, both of them are entitled for bail.
4. ' On the other hand the learned Advocate Mr. Dhani Bux Dayo appearing for the State contended that allegation against the accused Mitho is that he fired from his pistol at the deceased Shoukat Ali whereas no part is assigned to Hubdar Ali except that he was present at the spot armed with hatchet therefore, he opposed the bail for Mitho but concedes that since no specific part has been assigned to the applicant/accused Hubdar Ali, therefore, he is entitled for concession of bail.
5. ' I have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates and have perused the entire record of this case.
6. I am afraid, I cannot agree with contentions of the learned State Counsel on the sole ground that accused Hubdar All was present at the spot at Wardat armed with hatchet with mens rea.
7. Moreover, the nature of the offence shows that this is a heinous offence committed under section 17(4) of the Hudood Ordinance which offences are increasing day by day in this part of the country and the people feel themselves insecure as the robberies are being committed on the thoroughfares. During the attempt of robbery death of Shoukat Ali was caused. The allegations against accused Mitho are that he was armed with pistol at the time of incident and fired at the deceased. The learned Advocate states that the fire made by accused Mitho was missed and nobody became injured, there is medical certificate on the record which shows that number of injuries were sustained by the deceased and so far as the evidence which floats on the surface of this case is concerned I do not find any merit to release both the applicants/accused on bail but direct the learned trial Court to examine the Medical Officer as well as two material witnesses and thereafter if the applicants are advised they can file fresh bail application before the trial Court hence at this stage no ground for bail is made out therefore, this bail application is rejected.