KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.- It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner was named by the PWs two years after the occurrence, that only general firing is attributed to the petitioner, that no injury either towards the deceased or the injured PWs is attributed to the petitioners, that no recovery was effected during the course of investigation. He further submits that petitioner was challaned by the police although in the instant F.I.R, but police submitted another challan as a cross version.
2. 0n the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner was implicated by the PWs in their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., that the offence alleged against the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C, against the petitioner were recorded about two years after the registration of the instant F.I.R., that no injury either towards the deceased or the injured PWs is attributed to the petitioner, that no weapon was recovered from the petitioner during the course of investigation.
Case of the petitioner is covered by Sub-Section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. In this view of the matter, petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.