1. ' The applicant has filed this application for hail as he has been involved in Crime No,45 of 1995 at Police Station Kamber, District Larkana. The F.1.R. Has been lodged by A.S.-I. Sher Muhammad Solangi which reads as follows:-- "That, I along with subordinate Staff viz. A.S.-I. Sher Muhammad Solangi P.C./3162 Zulfiqar Ali, P.C./416 Ghulam Rasool, P.C./3640 Mazharul Haq had proceeded from police station for patrolling duty, in Government vehicle, vide daily diary entry No,12/8-3-1995 at 10-00 hours. During patrolling duty, it was learnt through reliable information that the murder had taken place in village Drib Jaro, we reached at Village Drib Jaro, where we saw dead body of deceased Mst. Haleeman wife of Haji Muhammad Khan Magsi, originally resident of Village Drib Jaro at present in Quetta lying on ground near houses of Magsis. She had received gun-shot injury on left side of her abdomen from which she was bleeding, whereas her daughter Mst. Haseena wife of Abdullah Magsi resident of Drib Jaro Taluka Kamber was also lying beside her, in injured and unconscious condition. She had received fire shot injury on left shoulder and on left side of head, from which she was bleeding. It was learnt that accused Amanullah son of Ghulam Nabi by caste Magsi resident of Village Drib Jaro Taluka Kamber with the help of his other accomplices had committed murder of Mst.
2. Haleeman and caused injuries to Mst. Haseena Magsi by causing them gunshot fire and thereafter, they had run away, and no other relative of victims was ready to lodge complaint."
3. 'The applicant had filed Bail Application No,105 of 1995 which was rejected by the trial Judge i,e, Additional Sessions Judge, Kamber vide orders, dated 4th April, 1997, inter alia, reasons given by the learned trial Judge is that he will Prevail over the injured eye-witness. His another reasoning was "I hold that the act of the accused renders him to be desperate; and dangerous; therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail even on the statutory grounds".
4. ' The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the F.I.R. Has been lodged by A.S.-I. In which inter alia, he has stated as follows:-- "It was learnt that accused Amanullah son of Ghulam Nabi by caste Magsi resident of Village Drib Jaro Taluka Kamber with the help of his other accomplices had committed murder of Mst.
5. Haleeman and caused injuries to Mst. Haseena Magsi by causing them gunshot fires, thereafter, they had run away, and no other relative of the victims was ready to lodge complaint."
6. ' According to the learned counsel for the applicant the other accomplices have not been chased nor named nor any enquiry has been made. According to him there is no report from the jail authorities which may be adverse to the applicant. According to him there is favorable report at page 23 of this Courts' record in which it has been stated that his conduct during the period in this jail remained/found satisfactory. According to him the findings of the trial Court are based on surmises and conjecture. As regards the other ground that the applicant shall prevail upon the injured person, he stated that the law has provided remedy to the State to file application for cancellation of bail if the concession of bail is misused.
7. ' The learned Assistant Advocate-General has opposed this bail application and has stated that since the applicant has committed heinous crime as such he' is not entitled to the relief of concession of bail as he is hardened, desperate criminal, however, he was unable to pin-point any such incident which may be available on record and may make him eligible to earn such remarks.
8. ' I have given anxious consideration to the various pleas urged by the learned counsel.
9. I am of the view that the F.I.R. Mentioned about the other accomplices whereas the case has been challaned only against the applicant. The allegation in F.I.R. That the applicant along with accomplices caused death and injuries would require further inquiry. More particularly because no other accomplices have' A been shown in the challan.
10. ' As regards the other contention of the learned Assistant Advocate-General the only proper course to the Court is that more security he demanded from the applicant before he is released on hail and in the event if he is found misusing the concession of hail the prosecution can always file an application for cancellation of hail. Therefore. Af:,:r ,hearing the parties in the open Court I passed the following order:-- "For the reasons to he recorded separately this hail application is allowed. The applicant is directed to he released on hail on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs,2.00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The prosecution shall he at liberty in case if the applicant misuses the concession of bail to file application for cancellation with specific role and incident to be mentioned in the said application."
11. ' These are the reasons for passing the above short orders.
12. Bail allowed