' This application has been moved on behalf of Khushi Muhammad and Muhammad Latif in case F.I.R. No,305 of 1995 registered with Police Station Gaggo under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. On the statement of Riasat Ali son of Imam Din, for the murder of his father Imam Din. Four persons have been named in the F.I.R. As accused namely Khushi Muhammad, petitioner, his son Shafiq other .Son Munir and third son Muhammad Latif, petitioner, Shafiq and Munir have been alleged to be armed with .12 bore shot gun and pistol respectively whereas Khushi Muhammad and Muhammad Latif petitioners have been alleged to be armed with Barchhi and Sota respectively. Latif has been alleged to have inflicted a Sota blow and Khushi Muhammad has inflicted blows of Barchhi on his chest whereas Latif has stately caused injuries on the back of complainant. The main contention on behalf of the petitioners is that although Khushi Muhammad is alleged to have caused Barchhi blows on the chest of deceased but there was found no incised wound on the chest of the deceased in the post-mortem report. There is contradiction in the version of eye-witnesses and the medical evidence. Latif although is attributed Sota blow to complainant but only abrasion has been located on his person. On the other hand learned counsel for the State associated by the counsel for the complainant opposed the bail. About Latif it is submitted that there is injury on the person of complainant his back which corroborates the averments in the F.I.R. However, learned counsel has not been able to explain absence of any injury caused with Barchhi on the deceased.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further adds that Khushi Muhammad is aged about 70 years, therefore, his participation in the occurrence is not very probable whereas Latif's participation has prima facie been established.
2. Even according to the police itself there are two versions. According to the prosecution the occurrence took place in front of the house of the complainant party but according to accused in front of their house.
3. Without making any comments on the merits of the case and without resorting to appreciation of the evidence I think the discrepancy in-between the medical evidence and the version given in the F.I.R., makes the case as that of further inquiry, therefore, Khushi Muhammad petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail, I, therefore, admit him to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, application to the extent of Muhammad Latif is not accepted.
' A. This petition stands disposed of.