1. ANWARUL HAQ, C.J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court of Sind dated 25th October, 1977 dismissing the petitioner's application for bail.
2. A case under section 302/207/148/149/435/188, P. P. C. Was registered against the present petitioner along with three others, namely, Aurangzeb. Ayub and Fazal Dad at the instance of Gal Rehman, the S. H. O. Police Station, Kalakot, Karachi, vide F. I. R. Dated 20th April, 1977.
3. The facts as disclosed by the F. I. R., briefly stated are, that on 20.4-1977 the above-named S. H. O.
4. While on duty, was Informed that a confrontation of political nature had taken place on Muhammad Khan Durrah Road between the PNA demonstrators who wanted the shops to close down and the PPP workers who were against it. The S. H. O. Alongwith his police party reached the spot and saw that the rioters were pelting stones at each other. Firing was also resorted to, as a result of which one poison died at the spot, and five persons were injured and taken to hospital, where one of them also died. According to the statements recorded by S. H. O. Of the alleged witnesses and injured persons the firing of gun shots was solely attributed to the present petitioner, being the only person armed with a gun.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the learned judge in the High Court has erred in dismissing the petitioner's application in that the F. I. R does not clearly specify who actually did the firing, that the plea of alibi has not been considered properly and that the petitioner is an infirm and old man of sixty years of age.
6. The learned Judge in the High Court has found that since there is ocular evidence of the injured persons, who had sustained gunshot injuries, Implicating the present petitioner as the only person who fired from a gun, it, could not be said that this was a case of no evidence. In view of the positive attribution of the gunshots to the present petitioner by the injured persons, we do not thing that the learned Judge in the High Court had acted improperly in the exercise of his discretion.
7. This petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.