1. ' Learned counsel for applicant has argued that in the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Kasaro Gadehi at Khairpur Nathan Shah Police Station on 12-12-1999, he had not given name of the applicant Sanwan to be the culprit of the incident of this case, and that names of Makhan, Ahmed. Kouro, Arzoo and Pandhi were given by him in the said F.I.R. For the purpose of attacking upon complainant's brother Jalal and thereby causing hatchet blows on his head, and by firing the gun on his person in consequence whereof Jalal expired and Muhammad Siddique was also inflicted fire-arm injuries; but the police let off all the said persons nominated in the F.I.R. (excepting absconding accused Hazooro) having not found guilty of the offence of this case, and that in his further statement of the complainant, he implicated the present applicant and others for committing the said offence.
2. ' Learned Assistant Advocate-General has stated that the Revenue Mukhtiarkar of Taluka Khairpur Nathan Shah had recorded further statement of the complainant on 1-3-1999, while he was not invested with any such power and wherein the names of the present applicant and others were given by the complainant to be the actual culprits of the incident of this case and wherein complainant stated that "by mistake he gave the names of the persons nominated in the F.I.R."
3. Accordingly, learned Assistant Advocate-General has supported this bail application.
4. ' In a case reported in Muhammad Jaffar v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 1338 (Karachi) bail was granted to the accused/applicant of the said case with the following observation:-- "In view of the above said circumstances it can be said that there are two versions of the incident and it had yet to be decided as to which of the two versions is correct. Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo has relied on an unreported decision of Supreme Court in Criminal Petition No,76-K of 1978 (Criminal Appeal No,1-K of 1985) in which the facts were that there were two versions about the role assigned to the respondent, first in the F.I.R. And then in the direct complaint. It was held by the supreme Court that under such circumstances the respondent was entitled to bail. The ratio of the above decision is fully attracted to the facts of the present case. Mr. Abdul Sattar, A.A.-G. Has also conceded that in view of the conflicting version of the incident, the applicant is entitled to bail."
5. ' This case being the case of conflicting version of the incident so far the culprits thereof at whose hands the incident allegedly took place, it is yet to be seen as to which one out of the said two versions is correct and which is false one, the applicant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,1.00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
6. Ball allowed.