' TARIQ PARVEZ, J.---Respondents Ghulam Daud and Abid Khan are brothers inter se and are charged in case F.I.R. No,55, dated 8-2-2000, for committing the offence of 'Qatl-i-Amad' of Mujeebur Rehman deceased by firing at him and also for causing fire-arm injuries to Sadiq-ur- Rehman.
' The matter was reported to zne police by Sadiq-ur-Rehman stating that on the date, time and place of occurrence, he alongwith Mujeebur Rehman deceased, Shafee-urRehman and Habib-ur- Rehman, were present watching the Volley Ball Match. During the game, the parties infuriated, on which Abid Khan and Ghulam Daud are said to have started firing, with the fire shot of Abid Khan, complainant was hit while with the fire shots of Ghulam Daud, the deceased as well as his co- accused Abid Khan were hit.
' Case F.I.R. No,56 of the even date, time and place was recorded on the report of Abid Khan accused/respondent where he has charged Mujeebur Rehman deceased of the case F.I.R. No,55 and Shafee-ur-Rehman, an eye-witness of said F.I.R., along with Imranur-Rehman for causing him fire-arm injuries and also stated that deceased Mujeeb-urRehman died due to firing of his co- accused.
2. It is a case in which both the complainant and the accused/respondent in their respective F.I.Rs,, have thrown the liability of causing murder of the deceased on the co-accused and for causing injuries to Abid Khan to the co-accused of his case i,e, both have not suppressed the injuries caused to each other. However, they are both inconsistent as to how the occurrence started.
3. It is argued that respondents who are directly charged in the F.I.R., have been allowed bail only on the basis of cross-case whereas three consecutive investigations have been made which are unanimous as to the falsity of the case F.I.R. No,56, therefore, respondents are not entitled to take the benefit of existence of cross-version. The learned counsel for the respondents (petitioner in cross-case Bail Cancellation Petition No,163 of 2001), however, contends that the Investigating Agency has recommended for the cancellation of case F.I.R. No,56 and intends to initiate proceedings under section 182, P. P. C . Against respondent Abid Khan but such opinion of the police could not find favour with learned trial Court who vide her order, dated 10-2-2001 has declined to accept reasons for cancellation of case F.I.R. No,56 and has not only proceeded with the trial but has also framed the charge.
4. At this stage and in view of the fact that whether case F.I.R. No,56 is a cross-case or not and whether Abid Khan accused/respondent has sustained injuries at the hands of his co-accused Ghulam Daud, would require evidence and because the charge in this case has also been framed and the case is posted for evidence for 15-5-2001, we would, therefore, refrain to make any observation as to the factum of genuineness or otherwise of case F.I.R. No,56 as because the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bannu, dated 10-2-2001 has not been challenged.
' As the trial has almost commenced, following the dictum of august Supreme . Court of Pakistan and in view of order, dated 10-2-2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bannu, this Court would not interfere with the order of grant of bail at this stage. This cancellation application, is, therefore, dismissed.