1. ' On 29-6-1997 at about 8-00 p.m. One Tariq Khan son of Haji Pio Khan, Caste Panezai, reported to Levies Thana Zindra, District Ziarat to the effect that a fight had taken place in Zindra between Muhammad Ibrahim and his brother and sons of Muhammad Usman due to which Faizul Haq and Noor Ahmad have received injuries. An F.I.R. No,9 of 1997 was accordingly registered. The injured persons were taken to Ziarat hospital where Faizul Haq succumbed to injuries and died. The accused persons made their escape good. During investigation the accused persons were arrested including present petitioner. Muhammad Younas and Muhammad Gul both applied for grant of bail which was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge-III, Quetta vide order dated 16-10- 1997.
2. ' Now only Muhammad Gul has filed this application under section 498, Cr.P.C. For grant of bail.
3. ' Heard Mr. Kamran Murtaza for accused/petitioner and Ahmad Khan Lashari, Advocate-General for State as well as Mr. Naeem Akhtar, Advocate for complainant.
4. ' Mr. Kamran Murtaza argued that none of the eye-witnesses have implicated Muhammad Gul who was in fact not present on the spot. Learned counsel further submitted that only basis for arresting Muhammad Gul is a letter addressed by Muhammad Gul to Complainant party which was full of threats and challenges. As a result of this letter when the complainant party came to Zindra they were attacked by Muhammad Younas and others who fired upon the complainant party resultantly injuring Faizul Haq and Noor Ahmad. Faizul Haq died as a result of injuries. It was next argued that it is yet to be known whether the letter was written by Muhammad Gul and if so whether in fact he intended to kill the deceased, therefore, on the basis of such logic and reasons it was argued that it is a case of further inquiry as far as Muhammad Gul is concerned.
5. ' Learned Advocate-General assisted by Mr. Naeem Akhtar (for complainant) argued that the main basis for the occurrence was the letter addressed by Muhammad Gul. Learned Advocate-General pointed out that it is a tribal area where such threats and challenges are taken very seriously as in the instant case. In fact it was argued that, if this letter had not been written the incident might have not taken place. On such basis learned Advocate-General contended that Muhammad Gul is an abettor who is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. ' I have considered the arguments so advanced. The case of Muhammad Gul is distinguishable from the rest of the accused persons. The distinguishing feature of his case is that although he was not factually found present on the scene of occurrence but the entire espsode was the result of a letter addressed by Muhammad Gul to complainant party. It was argued that had this letter been not written incident might have been avoided which resulted in the death of Faizul Haq and serious injuries to Noor Ahmad.
7. ' Indeed the letter might have contained some provocative material and challenges but then the question arises whether Muhammad Gul had the intention to kill or to abet killing of any one of complainant party? I have not been much impressed from this argument for the reason firstly that the contents of the letter does not show that Muhammad Gul intended or abetted to kill deceased Faizul Haque. The second reason being that the prosecution ought to have. Collected material prima facie showing abetment of Muhammad Gul for the commission of the offence of murder.
8. Last but not the least that the complainant party could approach the administration or concerned authorities showing them the letter and requesting for binding down Muhammad Gul and others for keeping peace.
9. Be that as it may, the material so collected requires further consideration as to the fact whether Muhammad Gul in fact committed abetment of murder of Faizul Haque particularly in view of the fact that no other overt act, for example, his presence on the spot or any other act, is attributed, apart from letter which is yet to be proved to have been written by Muhammad Gul. Thus, his case being a case of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. I am, therefore, inclined to grant bail to Muhammad Gul. He shall be released if not required in any other case, subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each and P.R. Of like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.
10. ' Any observations made in this bail order would be tentative and shall not be taken into consideration at the trial.