1. ' MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.--- The applicant is facing trial before the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur in Sessions Case No,108 of 2005 Crime No,44 of 2005, Police Station Chakk District Shikarpur for offences under sections 302, 301, 34, P.P.C. And 18, Z. H .O.
2. ' The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6-7-2005 complainant Aijaz Ahmed lodged F.I.R. To the effect that on 3-7-2005 at about 4-00 p.m. While he along with P.Ws. Muhammad Hassan and Abdul Razak was standing near his house, co-accused Ayaz and Fayaz asked his son Sheeraz to accompany them to their Otaq where two of his friends were waiting for him. On such request Sheeraz accompanied the said co-accused. He, however, did not return the whole night. The applicant could not locate either Sheeraz or the said two co-accused and on 5-7-2005 he came to know that police has discovered a body with bald head lying in a gunny bag. The same day he came across his relative P.W. Saeed Ahmed who informed the complainant that on 4-7-2005 at 8- 00 a.m. He saw Ayaz closing the shelter of his shop which is in front of Saeed Ahmed's shop and that a yellow coloured closed gunny bag which appeared to be stained with blood was lying there and co-accused Mansoor Meerbahar was standing near the said gunny bag. He further told the complainant that he has seen co-accused Ayaz and Mansoor putting the said bag in the dickey of a car bearing No,G-4187 parked near the said shop and that the present applicant was sitting on the driving seat of the said car. The said P.W. Further stated that after putting the gunny bag in the car the co-accused Ayaz and Mansoor boarded the car and were driven away by the applicant.
3. On 6th July, 2005 the complainant along with the witnesses went to Police Station Sukkur B-Section where he identified the cloths and key chain secured from the dead body discovered by the police which the complainant identified of his son Sheeraz. The fact that the body discovered by police was of Sheeraz, was further confirmed from the photograph of the dead body shown to the complainant by the police. Police informed the complainant that Sheeraz has already been buried by police through Edhi Trust.
4. ' The learned counsel submits that the present case is of an unwitnessed murder. The person whose body was recovered by the police has allegedly died of strangulation. He pointed out that the statement of the P.Ws. Were recorded after fifteen days of the incident whereas their statements under section 164 were recorded twenty-five days after the incident i,e, on 30-7-2005 and there is absolutely no explanation for such delay. He further submits that the only allegation against the applicant is that one of the P.Ws. Namely Saeed Ahmed who is said to be related to the complainant had on 4th July, 2005 seen the applicant drove the car in which co-accused Ayaz and Mansoor had kept a gunny bag. He further submitted the except for the ocular evidence of the prosecution witness two of whom has recorded statement to the effect that the co-accused Ayaz and Fayaz had came to the complainant house and on his request the deceased had accompanied them whereas P.W. Saeed Ahmed has allegedly seen the co-accused Ayaz and Mansoor putting a closed gunny bag in the car driven by the applicant, there is no other material to connect the accused with the alleged crime.
5. ' Heard learned counsel and perused the record of the case with their assistance. This is a case of unwitnessed murder. The co-accused Ayaz has been implicated on the statement of the complainant and other P.Ws. That it was in their presence that the deceased at the request of the co-accused Ayaz and Fayaz left with them and further on the statement of P.W. Saeed Ahmed that he had seen Ayaz standing along with closed gunny bag and putting the said bag in a car with the help of co-accused Mansoor and then both of them leaving the said car driven by the present applicant. Whereas against Fayaz the only evidence is that the deceased accompanied him and co-accused Fayaz and as noted above the only evidence through which the present applicant and Mansoor was implicated is that of Saeed Ahmed a relative of the complainant. There is no other material which could connect any of the accused with the commission of the alleged offence. The only role, so far assigned to the present applicant, is that he drove the car in which the co-accused Ayaz and Mansoor kept the said bag. The applicant's case therefore, requires further enquiry, the learned State counsel has also conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant. In the circumstances, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,50,000 and executing a bail bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.