1. ' MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.---As per crime F.I.R. Recorded at Police Station, Sakrand on 23-5-2006 at 1930 hours, while the Complainant along with his father, brother Qadir Bux and brother-in-law Hussain Bux were sleeping in the courtyard of their house. The Complainant, his brother and brother-in-law woke up at the sound of fire-arm shot and saw the Applicants Nos.2 and 3 armed with DBBL guns standing near the cot of Complainant's father, whereas applicant No,1 who was armed with Klashnikov type weapon was standing on the roof and two unknown persons who standing in the street. All the accused threatened the Complainant and left along with their weapons. The Complainant then found his father lying dead with fire-arm injuries on his back and thighs, as it was night time and no transport was available, it was in the morning that the complainant went to nekmard Shah Muhammad to inform about the incident, however since he was not available, the Complainant narrated the incident to the nekmard, when he came back, and on his advice, the Complainant, leaving the above inmates of the house with the dead-body, came to the Police Station and lodged the F.I.R.
2. ' The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He pointed out that there is more than 16 hours delay in lodging the F.I.R. He further pointed out that although the F.I.R. Was lodged on 23-5-2006 at 1930 hours i,e, 7-30 p.m. However, the post-mortem was conducted at 9-00 a.m. On that day i,e, before the lodging of F.I.R., and yet the letter issued by police for the post-mortem, as mentioned in the post-mortem report itself, bears No,72 of 2006, which is the number assigned to the crime/F.I.R. He submitted that the above anomaly creates doubt regarding the time of recording of F.I.R. And further reveals that the post-mortem was conducted before the lodging of the F.I.R. In this regard, the learned counsel referred to the cases of Aminullah v. State (PLD 1982 SC 429) and Kouro and another v. State (2004 YLR 2434). He further pointed out that although the brother and brother-in-law of the complainant were allegedly present in the complainant's house and had allegedly witnessed the incident, but their statements were recorded five days after the incident, which creates doubt regarding their alleged presence at the time of the incident. The learned counsel submitted that after recording the F.I.R. The complainant has also filed a direct complaint against five other persons, wherein he disclosed that the present accused/applicants are innocent and their names have been mentioned by him in the F.I.R. At the instance of accused Pir Bux son of Wahid Bux, cited by him as accused No,3, in the direct complaint. He further disclosed that he does not reside in village Haji Adam Brohi andon the night of the incident he was not present in the house of his deceased father, Wahid Bux Brohi, and that he has lodged false F.I.R. At the instance of said Pir Bux who is his step- brother. The learned counsel also referred to the statements of the complainant, and witnesses Mir Muhammad and Hado, recorded by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Nawabshah under section 200, Cr.P.C., corroborating the facts as narrated in the direct complaint, to the effect that in fact the Respondents in the said complaint are the real culprits and the present applicants have been falsely implicated. The learned counsel relied upon the cases of Muhammad Javed v. State (1995 SCM R 1178), Peeral and others v. State (2003 M LD 1698) and Amir v. State (PLD 1972 SC 277).
3. ' Mr. Riazuddin Siddiqui, learned State counsel in view of the facts and circumstances of the case concedes to the grant of bail to the applicants.
4. ' There has been a delay of about 16 hours in lodging the F.I.R. And the explanation for such delay is not plausible. The statements of the eye-witnesses have been recorded after a delay of five days.
5. Neither the complainant nor the witnesses have seen any of the applicants firing and killing the deceased. Moreover, through the direct complaint filed by the complainant in respect of the incident, he has admitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated by him in the F.I.R., at the instance of his step brother and .Infact it is the accused cited in the direct complaint who have committed the crime. It can be seen from the post-mortem report, the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted before recording the F.I.R. The case, therefore, requires further inquiry.
6. The applicants in the facts and circumstances of the case are entitled to bail and, are, therefore, admitted to bail, subject to their furnihing surety in the sum of Rs,300,000 (Rupees three hundred thousand) each, and PR bonds in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.