Law:

Section:

MUHAMMAD SAFDAR KHAN SIKANDARI, J.---Dissatisfied from the bail refusal order, dated 6-10-2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Paharpur and the subsequent bail dismissal order, dated 14-10-2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, D.I. Khan, the petitioner has come up to. this Court for securing the postarrest bail in case F.I.R. No.210, dated 10-9-2009 registered under sections 302/324 / 148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Paharpur, District D.I. Khan.   Concise facts forming the background of the prosecution case are to the effect that complainant Muhammad Ramzan reported the occurrence to the police in the Civil Hospital, D.I. Khan wherein he alleged that on the eventful night at 2400 hours, he along with other inmates of the house were asleep in the courtyard of his house. One Ghulam Samdani climbed over the wall and raised threatening shout to the complainant .with dire consequences. The complainant noticed Ghulam Samdani, Dr. Mumtaz, Rehmat Shah, Suleman alias Saleem, Muhammad Amin and one unknown person sitting on the wall of complainant's house who opened fires at the complainant party with their respective firearms with which Muhammad Kamreen got hit and died on the spot whereas his other son Hashmat, daughter Mst. Aisha Bibi and his wife Mst. Zaitoon Bibi received injuries while the complainant fortunately escaped unhurt. The perpetrators, after the occurrence, decamped from the spot. The motive described by the complainant is over some previous brawl.   Mr. Salimullah Khan Ranazai advocate, counsel for the petitioner contended that the occurrence has taken place at midnight in the darkness and the PWs. have not identified the actual culprits but the complainant has thrown the net too wide to implicate so many innocent persons of the accused party in spite of the fact that the petitioner is neither the caste fellow of his co-accused nor he has any direct motive for inflicting injuries to the complainant party nor he has shared the common intention with the other co-accused for the commission of offence and thus he is entitled to bail under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the…