' ABDUR RAUF KHAN LUGHMANI, J.--- Petitioner Moeenuddin, who along with several others, is involved in case F.I.R. No,108 under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Domed; District Bann, was refused bail by the learned Judge Special Court, Bannu, vide order, dated 29-7-1998, and now he has approached this Court for his release on bail.
2. Muhammad Alam Din, on 9-7-1998 at about 7-30 a.m. Brought the dead body of Mst. Mir Dara and lodged report alleging therein that on the eventful morning, he was in the bathroom of the house preparing himself for bath, when Moeenuddin and Muhammad Afsar Din, came duly armed with Kalashnikovs, raised 'Lalkara' and started firing. He was hit with the fire shot of Moeenuddin, while Mst. Mir Dara was hit and died on the spot with the fire shots of Muhammad Afsar Din.
Muhammad Rehman, Muhammad Azeem and Aulia Din had also taken position behind the wall and fired at them.
3. Yet, another version of the occurrence was reflected earlier in case F.I.R. No,107, lodged on the same day at about 7-10 a.m. Petitioner Moeenuddin charged Jan Alam, Islam Din and Iqbal Din armed with kalashinkovs and shotguns for firing resulting in the death of Bad shah Din. He also claimed to have been injured.
4. The time and scene of occurrence in both the cases are the same. Admittedly, the petitioner suffered fire-arm injury and Badshah Din lost his life due to fire-arm injuries while Muhammad Alam Din sustained fire-arm injury and Mst. Mir Dara lost her life from the side of the complainant.
Mst. Mir Dara deceased sustained one fire-arm wound, whereas Badshah Din deceased suffered several fire-arm injuries.
5. Indeed, it is neither possible nor desirable to express an opinion at such an early stage as that of bail as to who is aggressor. Both the parties do not account for the loss or injuries suffered by the other. How the occurrence took place or who is aggressor, is a matter for determination at the trial.
Suffice to say that the occurrence gave rise to two different versions and, in the circumstances; the case of petitioner is clearly of further enquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. We are supported in our view by the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Shoaib Mahmood Butt v.
Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others reported as 1996 SCMR 1885 wherein it was held as under:-- "In case of counter-versions arising from the same incident, one given by the complainant in F.I.R.
And the other given by the opposite-party, case-law is almost settled that such cases are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C."
6. We would, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs,3 lacs, with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, which is to ensure that the sureties are respectable, hail from the settled area of N.-W.F.P. And of sufficient means.