1. ' The applicant seeks bail in Crime No,75 of 1996 of Police Station Karampur registered under sections 302/324/148 and 149, P.P.C. Briefly the facts of prosecution case are that on 20-11-1996 complainant Abdul Qadir lodged report with police that he owned land in Deh Jamal as joint property being about 100 acres. The said land was used to look after by Khan, Parto and Ghulam Mustafa. It is alleged that at 10-00 hours accused Muhammad Murad, Jaffer and Godho with K.Ks.
2. Abdul Sami also with K.K., Sharbat with rifle, Dur Khan Dost Ali with guns, Tharo and Wali Muhammad with hatchets, Thangai and three unidentified assailants with Lathies were found standing in the land and complainant enquired from accused Muhammad Murad as to why they had come on the land duly armed whereupon Muhammad Murad replied that they had been there to avenge his implication in a criminal case at Tangwani Police Station and saying so he fired directly at Khan Muhammad which hit him and he fell down. Thereafter, Muhammad Murad, Jaffer, Abdul Sami and Godho fired at complainant party whereby complainant Abdul Qadir and P.Ws.
3. Parto and Ghulam Mustafa sustained injuries and then accused ran away from the place of incident. The motive of the incident was that prior to this incident complainant party had complained against accused Muhammad Murad. Police sent all the injured persons to hospital for examination and treatment. Khan Muhammad died due to the injuries. After investigation police submitted challan showing accused Tharoo, Mehrab, Mehar and Ghulam Muhammad in custody whereas accused Muhammad Murad and Thangai as absconders while accused Jaffer, Godho, Sharbat, Dur Khan, Dost Ali and Wali Muhammad were let off. Subsequently, police filed report after 9 months of the challan that all the persons initially found innocent and placed in Column No,2 of the challan to be treated as accused in this case.
4. ' A cross-case about this incident was also filed in which complainant Mehar lodged report that his Nekmard Muhammad Murad owned land in Deh Jamal of which he, Abdul Sami, Mehrab, Ghulam Muhammad, Tharoo and Thangai were the Haris/cultivators and that on 20-11-1996 at 1000 hours accused Mooso, Azizullah with K.Ks. Abdul Qadir, Nawab, Sahib, Ghulam Khan Muhammad, Ghulam Mustafa and Abdul Sattar with guns and Parto and four unidentified assailants with Lathies arrived at land in Datsun Pick-up and Tractor and out of them Nawab gave Hakal as to why complainant party was ploughing the land and saying so fired at Abdul Sami directly which hit him and accused Abdul Qadir also fired at Thangai which hit him and both fell Own. Accused Parto and some unknown assailants gave Lathies blows to Tharoo and complainant. Thereafter, accused Mooso and Azizullah fired in the air and went away. The motive of this incident was ploughing in the land and possession thereof. In this incident Abdul Sami died. Police submitted challan showing accused Nawab, Mooso, Abdul Sattar and Ghulam Yaseen in custody while accused Abdul Qadir, Sahib, Azizullah, Ghulam Mustafa and Parto as absconders. Subsequently accused Azizullah surrendered before the Court.
5. ' In both the cases some of the accused were granted bail by learned Special Judged, S.T.A., Jacobabad. These cases then transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.T.A., Jacobabad for disposal.
6. ' Bail application of accused Muhammad Murad (applicant herein) and Dost Ali was moved before Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.T.A. For Taluka Kandhkot who by his order, dated 20-10- 2001 was pleased to grant bail to accused Dost Ali while bail application of applicant was rejected holding that the name of applicant transpires in the F.I.R. And he is attributed specific role of having fired upon deceased Khan Muhammad. Hence this bail application.
7. ' We have heard the learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for complainant and State at length and perused both the F.I.Rs, carefully. It is contended by the counsel for applicant that the case against applicant is false as he has been implicated by complainant party due to previous enmity existing between the parties over some land. He has further asserted that all the P.Ws. Are related, interested, set up and hostile to applicant and admittedly there are cross-cases between both parties and from both sides one person each has lost their lives. The applicant side has also sustained injuries, therefore, the point of aggression is yet to be determined at trial which bring the case of applicant one of further enquiry.
8. ' Learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail to applicant on the ground that there is direct role assigned against him.
9. It is an admitted position that there are cross-cases between both sides and from each side one person has lost their lives. It is also an admitted position that applicant sides also sustained injuries in the incident. There are two versions of the prosecution case itself goes to create doubt and makes the case against the applicant to be one of further enquiry. It is yet to be determined who is aggressor and who first caused injuries to other side. Keeping in mind the above facts and cross- cases between the parties, we feel that the case against the applicant is also of further enquiry.
10. ' We by our short order, dated 15-11-2001 had granted bail to the applicant and foregoing are the reasons for the same.