' The alleged incident took place on 19-7-1996 before noon and the report was lodged on 23-7-1996 at 5-30 p.m. At Police Station Gilgit by one Muhammad Khushdad Khan real brother of Muhammad Mukhtar deceased to the effect that on 17-7-1996 a few notable namely Rasool, Qasim, Muhammad Ghulam, Malik Shah, Abdul Hakeem, Abdul Jalal and Muhammad Mulditar deceased belonging to different villages were deputed to accompany the Jirga members, namely Malik Sher Muhammad, Pirdad Khan and Malik Fazal Rehman of Kohistan, who had to inspect a pasture known as Achogah which was under dispute between different villages. The aforesaid notables accompanied the Jirga Members/Arbitrators and proceeded towards the pasture in question in order to settle the dispute among the different villages; that on 20-7-1996 Muhammad Khushdad Khan maker of the first information report got an information that his brother Muhammad Mukhtar has been killed by Jehangir Khan, Rashi Khan, Raja and Zakir etc. By firing at him. The lodger of the report is not an eye-witness to the incident nor he has disclosed the name of the person from whom he derived information regarding the murder of his brother; the information about the murder of Muhammad Mukhtar, as per F.I.R. Was Kai obtained on 20-7-1996, whereas the report about the present occurrence was made on 23-7-1996 at 5-30 p.m. No explanation is given in the first information report about the alleged delay of 4 days nor any one is mentioned as an eye- witness to the occurrence. The Jirga Members namely Malik Sher Muhammad, Pirdad Khan and Malik Fazal Rehman had submitted an application to the S.S.P., Gilgit on 22-7-1996, wherein they did not disclose the name or names of the assailants in connection with the murder of Muhammad Mukhtar deceased. No report was drawn on the basis of the application of the Jirg4 Members.
2. After 14/15 days of the occurrence; i,e, on 2-8-1996. Muzaffar Hussain, Rahim Khan and Wali Ghulam were examined under section 161, Cr.P.C. By the police as eye-witnesses to the present incident, but all the three P.Ws. Do not support the version given in the F.I.R. By Muhammad Khushdad Khan, complainant.
3. The accused four in number had approached the Sessions Judge, Gilgit for obtaining bail before arrest, but on 18-9-1996, the learned Sessions Judge did not confirm their pre-arrest bail and the accused were arrested on 18-9-1996.
4. After the arrest of accused, on 23-9-1996, the present accused/petitioner Raja led the police to a cattle-shed situated in Village Shoot, wherefrom at his instance and potation, a Kalashnikov was recovered allegedly used as a weapon of crime.
5. Thereafter, all the four accused moved regular bail application in the Court of Sessions Judge, Gilgit. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to release Jehangir, Rashi Khan and Zakir on bail, but declined to allow bail to Raja, accused/petitioner.
6. Not content with the impugned order, dated 26-11-1996, Raja approached this Court for grant of bail. Arguments were addressed by either side, in detail. Record of the case has been examined thoroughly.
7. It is a fact that there was firing for a considerable period, but not a single empty shell have been recovered from the vicinity of the spot. Had any empties been recovered from the spot or near about the place of occurrence and the same were sent alongwith the klashnikov to the Arm Expert to find out as to whether the empties were fired from the same weapon or different, but in the present case, as stated above, not a single empty has been recovered from the spot, rather the marginal witnesses to the recovery memo. Namely Jehangir son of Ghulam Rasool and Raziq Shah son of Ghulam Haider appeared before the learned Sessions Judge when the bail application was being argued and they did not support the prosecution version to the extent of recovery of klashnikov made from Raja, accused/petitioner Taking all these factors into consideration, coupled with the fact that the co-accused namely Jehangir, Rashi Khan and Zakir were released on bail, on the basis of the same evidence. The rule of consistency fully applies in respect of Raja, accused/petitioner, whose case is at par with his co-confederates. I, therefore, without going deep into the merits of the case, allow bail to the accused/petitioner Raja subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,20,000 with two sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Magistrate 1st Class, Gilgit.