2001 PLP 2089 (YLR)

Gul Hassan Solangi for the State. Date of hearing: 22nd June, 2001. Bail of applicant/accused Hazoor Bux involved in a murder case alongwith four other accused persons pending trial before the Court of VII-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana is sought on the ground of consistency and the benefit of doubt at the bail stage. The prosecution story briefly stated is that on 27-11-2000 at 10-30 p.m. some three unknown culprits entered into the house of the complainant Muhammad Ibrahim in village Gogharo, Taluka Kambar and caused fire-arm injuries to Haji Munir Ahmed and his son Rasheed Ahmed and then ran away. It is stated in the F.I.R. that other inmates of the house namely Muhammad Ali, Mst. Amiran and other family members also woke-up on the fire shots and they saw the culprits. The complainant thereafter took his brother Rasheed Ahmed to the emergency ward of the hospital, at Larkana and thereafter appeared at the Police Station, Kambar and lodged the F.I.R. Munir Ahmed complainant's father having died at the Wardat was left there. The police at the conclusion of the investigation, challaned five accused persons namely Shah Dost, Rabban alias Rab Rakhio, Gulzar Ali, Ali Dost and Hazoor Bux (the present .applicant), showing accused Gulzar Ali and Ali Dost as absconding accused. Injured Rasheed Ahmed said to have died later after about a month or so. It is contended by Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro learned counsel for the applicant that the complainant is the brother of P.W. Rasheed Ahmed (now dead) and P.W. Muhammad Ali and his son of P.W. Mst. Amiran. The F.I.R. was lodged after one hour of the incident against unknown culprits. The statements of above P. Ws. Muhammad Ali, Mst. Amiran and Rasheed Ahmed (Then injured) were recorded after two days and the same are fabricated, as in fact if these P.Ws. had really identified the culprits by their names, same should have been made known to the complainant and the culprits names should not have been missing from the F.I.R. The learned counsel further urges that the other piece of prosecution evidence is only the identification test, without any specific rote assigned to applicant and without recovery of any incriminating article. It has been lastly urged that the case of the applicant is at par with the case of the accused Rabban, Gulzar Ali and Ali Dost who have been granted bail by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon 1976 SCMR 366, 1987 PCr.LJ 2423, 2000 PCr.LJ 1508 and 1994 PCr.LJ 1773. Mr. Gul Hassan Solangi, learned counsel for the State does not controvert the above contentions raised on behalf of the applicant and concedes to the grant of bail to the applicant. The name of the applicant does not appear in the F.I.R. There is no specific allegation of any overt act against the applicant even after his identification test parade. The statements of P.Ws. namely Mst. Amiran, Muhammad Ali and Rasheed Ahmed (then injured) having been recorded after delay of two days are lacking in their normal strength to the prosecution case. The case of the co-accused having been granted bail does not appear to be better than that of the applicant. The perusal of the trial Court order further reveals that the applicant is aged about 16/17 years. All the above factors make the case of the applicant one of further inquiry and of doubt, benefit of which can be extended to an accused at bail stage. The applicant appears to be entitled to bail in view of the above. Bail is accordingly granted to the applicant subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs. two lacs and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./H-50/K Bail granted.