1. ' Heard advocate for the applicants and State counsel. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there are counter cases between the parties and both the parties have suffered injuries. The F.I.R. In the present case was lodged on 16-1-1998 by Paryo complainant and it was registered as Crime No.2 of 1998 at Police Station Pangrio. The F.I.R. Of Soomro Khan was lodged by complainant Soomro on the same date at the same Police Station was registered as Crime 3 of 1998. The place of incident is the same. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the accused in the counter cases are on bail and he has referred to the order of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Badin dated 13-9-1999 wherein he has mentioned as under:-- "Further more there are counter cases in between the parties and it is yet to be seen as to which of the party is aggressor, therefore, case of applicant/accused under the circumstances is of further inquiry."
2. ' The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge has mentioned that there are counter cases but in the order dated 13-9-1999 it is not mentioned that there are counter cases. The fact remains that there are counter cases and the learned counsel has relied on the decision reported as 1996 SCM R 1845.
3. The relevant page is 1854 at paragraph 16 which is reproduced as under:-- "16. In case of counter-versions arising from the same incident, one given by complainant in F.I.R.
4. And the other given by the opposite party case-law is almost settled that such cases are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. In such cases normally, bail is granted on the ground of further enquiry for the reason that the question as to which version is correct is to be decided by the trial Court which is supposed to record evidence and also appraise the same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard. In cases of counter-versions normally, plea of private defence is taken giving rise to question as to which party is aggressor and which, party is aggressed. In the case of Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmed (1976 SCM R 391) in cross-cases the High Court granted bail to the accused on the ground that there was probability of counter-version being true as some of the accused had received injuries including a grievous injury on the head of one accused. It was held by this Court that in such circumstances the High Court was right in granting bail and no interference was warranted. In the same context reference can be made to the case of Mst. Shaliqan v. Hashim Ali and others (1972 SCM R 682)."
5. Learned State Counsel has no objection as there are counter cases. Accordingly I grant bail to the applicants subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each and PR Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.