1. ' This application has been moved by the applicant in Crime No, 2 of 2002 registered at Police Station Khabar, it is claimed that the deceased Haji Riaz Ahmed stayed behind of the Dera for looking after the crop. He returned home at 2-00 in the morning and when he reached near the Otaq he saw a light and in the light saw that five persons were sitting on the ground who were armed. They called Haji Riaz. Ahmed into Otaq. There were Safder,
2. Ghulam Qadir,
3. Raza Mohammad and 4. Abdul Razzak. Safder abused the deceased and directly fired at him. He received injuries on his face, nose and right eye and fell down. On raising cries and on fire-arm report and abuses the complainant and Liaquat Ali and Mohammad Sharif went running towards Otaq and in the light of the Bulb saw the four persons as well as one unknown person. On seeing the complainant party coming they ran away.
2. ' It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that a plan reading of the F.I.R. Shows that the entire story is concocted. He read both the English and Sindhi versions of the F.I.R. And emphasised that if a person returns home at 2-00 in the morning with no obvious persons accompanying him and then according to the complainant he is called to the Otaq by several persons who first abused him and then shot him, is a story that needs to be verified. According to the F.I.R., the complainant party on hearing cries, abuses and fire-arm reports ran _towards the Otaq where once again on the light of Bulb they saw the four persons mentioned above as well as one unidentified person who on seeing them coming abused them and ran away on the western side.
3. ' He has further contended that the applicant is of tender age and to hold him behind bars would not be fair. Counsel has placed on record his school certificate.
4. ' I have heard the learned counsel at length. I have also seen a bail order passed in Criminal Bail Application No, 249 of 2002 passed by my brother Wahid Bux Brohi-J. Where the co-accused Ghulam Qadir, Raza Mohammad and Abdul Razzak have been granted bail, it would be appropriate to reproduce the observation of my brother: "On bare perusal of the F.I.R. It appears that the complainant and P. Ws. Were attracted to the scene on hearing fire-arm reports and abuses. There is only one fire which is attributed to accused Safdar and the F.I.R. Shows that the complainant party reached the place of incident after the incident of making fire had already taken place. What part was played by the applicants is yet to be determined at the trial but on the face of it from the material on record such as F.I.R. And statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Neither the fatal injury nor any overt act is attributed to them.
5. Besides, the F.I.R. Shows that the first portion of story relates to happenings within the knowledge of deceased alone and when the complainant and P.Ws. Reached the scene he was writhing in utmost agony and struggling for life, and succumbed to injuries then and there. It is not explained how those facts of earlier happenings transpired to complainant and P.Ws."
6. The co-accused were indeed granted bail as no specific role was attributed to them as observed by my brother above. The role of the present applicant could be argued to be specific. It could be argued that indeed he had fired point blank. What is not understood from the reading of the F.I.R. Is how can the complainant was able to narrate all that happened in his absence. The story could have been plausible if the deceased had not been found dead and had before dying narrated the entire incident or it 'could be claimed that some body was a witness to the entire incident.
7. Under the circumstances, based upon my views above I hold that it is a fit case for grant of bail as further enquiry is necessary. Bail is accordingly granted in the sum of Rs, 100,000 and executing a P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
8. ' Criminal Bail Application No, S-377/2000 stands disposed of along with listed applications.