1. ' On behalf of the applicants bail has been sought in Crime No,48 of 1999 registered at City Police Station under sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 353, P.P.C. Read with section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act and section 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997/98. Earlier, similar application was moved before the Judge of Special Court S.T.A., Hyderabad which stand dismissed under the impugned order, dated 1st December, 1999.
2. ' According to on 4-9-1999 there was a call for strike from business community, M.Q.M. And other political parties and on that day the police party patrolled different places and when they were going through Chotki Ghati to Shahi Bazar some 10/11 persons including the present applicants were identified by them. They all raised slogans and accused Muhammad Umar threw a hand cracker towards the patrolling party and two of them namely Shakil Ahmed Zai and Iftikhar Ufti took out pistols and opened fires directly at the police party. It is stated that two other police officials who had joined the police party, in order to overawe the accused, also fired some 12 shots in the air from SMG rifles and four of the miscreants namely Shakil Ahmed Zai, Iftikhar alias Ufti, Muhammad Umar and Muhammad Junaid were apprehended and from the first-mentioned two accused T.T.
3. Pistols of .30 bore were secured and from rest of them five wrapped hand crackers were recovered.
4. Remaining accused, however, managed to make their escape good.
5. ' Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were in the first instance reported against under the Anti-Terrorism Act but subsequently, the case was returned by the concerned Court as no case under the Anti-Terrorism Act was made out. Further contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that there is contradictory version in the F.I.R. As to their identification by police party at place of occurrence. The first version of police officials in the F.I.R. Is that they identified the accused by name as soon as they came within their sight though it is not disclosed that they were known to them previously, then they have made other statement that after throwing hand crackers and firing four accused inclusive of applicants Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended who disclosed their names. According to learned counsel, this single contradiction in F.I.R. Make the same unworthy of credit. Besides, no weapon was recovered from any of the applicants and it is only recovery of five hand crackers, which have been attributed to the applicants Nos.1 and 2. It is contended that allegations are that fires were opened directly at police party but none of them was injured in the firing which also makes the case of complainant doubtful as against the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is alleged that 12 rounds were fired from SMG rifle by the police but at the place of occurrence no empty of SMG was found which is yet another fact to cast doubts on prosecution story. Dilating on the type and potentials of hand crackers, learned counsel. Submits that the same have not been sent to the Chemical Examiner to know if they form the explosive substance or not. Further, learned counsel submits that the place of incident is in the heart of city as much as it is located in Shahi Bazar a place heavily crowded and surrounded by good and independent citizens but, none from the private persons has been cited as witnesses and even no attempt has been made to procure private witnesses to attest the arrest of the applicants and that all the P. Ws. Are police officials who are interested to implicate , the applicants. Lastly, he submitted that no sanction under Explosives Act has been obtained to report against the applicants. He has placed reliance on the case-law reported as Muhammad v. The State 1998 SCM R 454 and an unreported case i,e, Gul Hassan alias Nadeem v. The State Criminal Bail Application No,395 of 1998.
6. ' Learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail to the applicants. He, however, failed to controvert any of the above grounds offered by the learned counsel for the applicants.
7. Admittedly, it is a case of ineffective firing, which is also not attributed to any of the applicants. No private person has been picked up from such a heavily congested place like Shahi Bazar of city to give evidence as to commission of crime as is alleged. It is also not understandable that how the police officials identified the accused by name as soon as they came within their sight when they do not seem to be earlier know to the police. No empty of SMG rifle is said to have been found at place of incident. All these facts make the case against the applicants of further inquiry.
8. ' Considering the facts and circumstances and the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicants we feel ourselves inclined to grant bail to the applicants. They are accordingly admitted to bail and shall be released on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each and P.R.
9. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.