1. ' The applicant alongwith others is being tried by the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu on the charge of Qatl-e-Amd and attempt to commit Qatl-e-Amd punishable under sections 302, 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 147, 148, 149 and 114, P.P.C.
2. ' The main ground urged on behalf of the applicant is that under the rule of consistency he is entitled to bail as co-accused Mithal and Koural as also Din Muhammad and Ahmed have been granted bail by this Court on 28-11-2000 and 29-4-2002 respectively. It is also contended that the injury attributed to applicant Ghulam Haider by sharp side of hatchet is falsified by the medical certificate as the said certificate shows lacerated wound on the person of Azizullah. However, Mr.Mashooq Ali Samo learned A.A.-G. Opposed the bail application on the ground that a blunt sided hatchet injury is also attributed to Ghulam Haider which he caused to complainant.
3. Mr.Abbasi, learned counsel for the applicant relied on Muhammad Fazal alias Bodi v. The State 1979 SCM R 9 and Abdul Aziz v. The. State 1996 SCM R 1693 in support of his contentions.
4. I have considered these contentions. Suffice it to say that this Court by order dated 29-4-2002 granted bail to accused persons Din Muhammad and Ahmed keeping in view the fact that there were counter-versions and all the accused in the counter-case had been granted bail; two accused in the instant case were also granted bail and the medical report was not in consonance with the version recorded in the F.I.R. On perusing the material available on record it is observed that the role of present applicant is not much different from the above mentioned four accused persons who have been granted bail. The only factor that he caused a blow to complainant on his head which has been certified to be Shujja-e-Khafifa is not enough to withhold concession of bail.
5. The fatal injuries are not attributed to the applicant. He is also in custody since 2-4-2000, that is to say, for a period more than two years. The case-law cited by the learned counsel is fully applicable to the instant case.
6. ' Considering all these circumstances the application is allowed. The applicant be released on furnishing one solvent surety in the sum of Rs,300,000 (Rupees three lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.