1. ' ZIA PERWEZ, J.-The applicant facing trial for an offence under section 17(4) Hudood Ordinance, 34, 148, 149 and 302, P.P.C. Vide Crime No. 17 of 1999 registered at Police Station Chak.
2. ' The facts of the case are that complainant Hadi Bux Bhayo lodged F.I.R. To the effect that at about 9-30 p.m. He was signaled to stop the Datsum while on the way to village Chak by 5 unidentified persons. On his failure to stop the Vehicle, shots were fired resulting in the death of his sister Mst.
3. Nazeer and 5 bullet injuries were inflicted to her son Nadir Ali.
4. ' The contention of the learned counsel is that the present applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He is not involved in any other criminal case. There is no evidence against the present applicant. On coming to know that he has been impleaded as co-accused in Challan, he moved the Court and surrendered voluntarily. However, his bail application was rejected and the applicant is confined on custody since 22-12-2003. Reliance is placed on the case of Javed Anwar v. The State (2001 PCr.LJ 1125) where a bail was granted in a case based on a mere statement of coaccused.
5. 'The learned State Counsel first opposed the maintainability of this Application on the ground that the case pertains to Shikarpur District and is now being tried by learned Ilnd Additional Session Judge, Sukkur, therefore, this Bench has no jurisdiction. However, the learned State counsel could not support his arguments by any cogent reasoning. His next contention is that co-accused were granted bail but they have misused the concession of bail and jumped bail, therefore, the present applicant may not be enlarged on bail. He further contended that there is sufficient - material but as the applicant was absconding, the same, could not be unearthed as the applicant was not available for investigation. At the same time, he also admitted that the applicant has been in custody since 22-12-2003 and no attempts for recording his statement were made by the prosecution or Investigating Officer. The learned State counsel further conceded that the case is to be proceeded on the basis of available record and no investigation is required to be conducted.
6. ' In view of the above position coupled with the facts, that the co-accused are also absconding and the case is not likely to be tried for the time being and as suggested by the learned State counsel that in case of bail sufficient surety may be ordered. The applicant is enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs.500,000 (Rs.Five lacs) each, with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Application is allowed.