2000 PLP 1243 (YLR)

Inayatullah Morio for the State. Applicant Zamir Hussain seeks bail in crime No.63 of 1999 of Police Station Civil Line, Larkana registered under sections 302, 34, 395 and 397, P.P.C. Precisely the facts of the case of prosecution are that on 23‑7‑1999 complainant Ghulam Shabir, his brother Ghulam Shahbar and his cousins Badar Hussain and Ayaz Hussain set out to attend charity meals arranged in village Khan Muhammad Jhinjhin. He and his cousins boarded on two motorcycles whereas his brother Ghulam Shahbar was on separate motorcycle and was little head of them. It was at about 10‑30 a.m. when they reached at the general bus stand, Larkana, they saw three persons with open faces having pistols and as soon as deceased Ghulam Shahbar reached near them all the three persons opened fires upon him from their respective pistols with intention to murder, which hit him and resultantly he fell down from the motor cycle. Thereafter, all the three culprits decamped alongwith their weapons towards east in the street. Complainant party went and found Ghulam Shahbar to have sustained fire shots at different parts of his body, and was bleeding, to whom they took towards causality ward of Civil Hospital, where he expired. Thereafter, complainant went to lodge the F.I.R. stating therein that some unknown culprits due to unknown enmity killed Ghulam Shahbar by firing from pistols. He and his witnesses had clearly seen the un identified culprits and would identify them if brought before them. It is contended by Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro that the case of prosecution is of two versions and is thus of further enquiry. According to him, P.Ws. Ayaz and Badar Hussain in their respective statements under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. have stated entirely different versions and have said that they identified applicant and co‑accused Shahid Hussain and Zahid Hussain to be culprits of the case at the time of incident who attempted to rob motorcycle from deceased Shahbar and on his resistance and grappling with the culprit he was fired at by applicant Zamir Hussain. He next contended that 161, Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws. have been recorded on 26‑7‑1999 belatedly as such it has got no value in the eye of law. He lastly contended that applicant and co‑accused were arrested on 26‑7‑1999 as suspects and entire investigation was completed on the above date. Mr. Inayatullah Morio on the other side after, going through the police papers concedes to the contention of applicant's counsel and states that there seems to be apparent interpolation on the dates in recording of 161, Cr.P.C. statements in the police diaries. He is unable to show the reasons of recording of 161, Cr.P.C. statements with delay of three days. In the above circumstances of the case he raises no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant. On the perusal of F.I.R., it is found that three unidentified culprits due to some unknown enmity fired at the deceased Ghulam Shahbar just on coming near to him who sustained injuries and fell down from the motorcycle and thereafter the said culprits decamped immediately from the scene of offence. According to the case of prosecution, P.Ws. Ayaz and Badar Hussain were together with complainant at the scene of offence. In case they had identified the applicant Zamir Hussain and co‑accused Shahid Hussain and Zahid Hussain at vardat then there was no reason not to nominate them in F.I.R. Their subsequent involvement by the above mentioned witnesses in their respective statements under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. bring the case of applicant within the ambit of further enquiry. On querry, learned State counsel submitted that applicant and co- accused were arrested on 26‑7‑1999 at 7‑30 a.m. as suspects. P.Ws. were called immediately thereafter at the police station and applicants were shown to them who saw and identified them to be the culprits. Identification test of applicant and co‑accused was arranged subsequently through above mentioned P.Ws. Ayaz Hussain and Badar Hussain. From above it appears that applicant was shown to the witness prior to holding of identification test. The grant of bail to co- accused Shahid Hussain and Zahid Hussain is an additional ground which finds favour for grant of bail to applicant. Accordingly, I am of the view that case against applicant requires further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. He is allowed bail and shall be released on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./Z‑3/K Bail allowed.