1. ' SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.--- Briefly stated of the facts of the matter per F.I.R. No,102 fo 04 of PS Kotidiji are that accused Gul. Muhammad had some time ago levelled allegation of KARAP against the complainant's brother Ashiq Ali with his sister Mst. Sairan which matter was reported to the Nekmards of the village. The accused party was ready for the FAISLA (decision) of the Jirga, however Gul Muhammad used to issue threats that Ashiq Ali is their KARO and he would be killed.
2. On 26-4-2004 at 2000 hours when the complainant and his brothers Ashiq Ali and Mahboob Ali along with cousin Muhammad Yakoob were coming back from the shrine of Pir Lal Shah, Gul Muhammad with iron lathi, Muhammad Juman with iron rod, Rajab, Jindal and Ghulam Muhammad all with lathis and two unidentified persons armed with rifles emerged from near Gul Muhammad's house. Gul Muhammad and Rajib gave blows their weapons to Ashiq All on his head and other parts of the body upon which he fell down and so also the other accused gave him lathi and iron rod blows continuously. The complainant and other P.Ws. Were prevented by the accused party from helping Ashiq All whose cries had stopped. Then the accused ran away by hurling abuses and they stated that they had murdered their KARO. Thereafter the complainant party approached Gul Muhammad and saw that he had died.
3. ' On the basis of foregoing facts Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that per the F.I.R. Only Gul Muhammad and Rajab hit deceased on the head whereas others including the applicant had hit him on other parts of the body. Secondly per learned counsel only Gul Muhammad had the motives as his sister was declared KARI with the deceased and hence the applicant and other co-accused were mala fidely nominated by the complainant as is the customs in the rural areas. Next per learned counsel the P.Ws. Have improved their version in 164 Cr,P.C. Statements recorded before the Magistrate wherein it is stated that the accused had dragged the deceased and besides nominated accused there was no one else whereas in the F.I.R.
4. Two unidentified persons were said to the present having rifles. Fourthly per learned counsel according to the Mashirnama of incident it was prepared at 5 a.m. Whereas the incident had occurred at 8 p.m. On the previous night. Consequently it was strange that the dead body was lying un-attended for 8 hours. In this respect the learned counsel has also submitted that per the Mashirnama the dead body was found about 36 feet away from the road in the Jowar crop (millet) but this has not been stated either in the F.I.R. Or in the 164 Cr.P.C. Statements of the P.Ws. Learned counsel has relied upon Ashraf v. State (2005 PCr.LJ 272).
5. ' On the other hand learned counsel for complainant Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar has vehemently opposed the bail plea of the applicant on the ground that the F.I.R. Has been promptly lodged and the accused including the present applicants nominated who were known to each other, consequently there cannot be any question of mistaken identity. Secondly per learned counsel the 164 Cr.P.C. Statements of the P.Ws. Fully corroborate the F.I.R. As also the Postmortem report in which as many as 13 injuries have been recorded on the body of the deceased. Finally per learned counsel the distance from the scene to the Police. Station is at least 22 Km and hence the Mashirnama was delayed. For all these reasons learned counsel has opposed the grant of bail. He has relied upon Gulu Khan v. Gul Daraz Khan (1995 SCM R 1765) and Akbar Jawed v. State (PLD 2003 Kar.417).
6. ' The learned A.A-G. Has supported the impugned Order whereby bail was declined to the applicant and agreed with the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant.
7. ' I have heard both learned counsel as well as learned A.A-G. It would be seen that the crime in question is the alleged gruesome murder of the deceased by as many as five accused with iron rod/lathis due to the allegation of Karo Kari. Although the applicant did not hit the deceased on the head which role is given only to Gul Muhammad and Rajib, it is alleged in the F.I.R. That he along with other co-accused hit the deceased with lathis/iron rod on other parts of his body and as much has been borne out by the Postmortem report which records as many as 13 injuries to the deceased on various parts of his body. The contents of the F.I.R. Have been corroborated by the 164 Cr.P.C. Statements of the P.Ws. As well as the Postmortem report. Consequently in my opinion prima facie the applicant/accused A can be connected with the crime in question and hence his case is not one of further enquiry as per the evidence on record. As regards learned counsel's submission viz-a-. Viz delay in preparing the Mashirnama of incident, this can be explained due to the distance of the Police Station from the scene of the incident viz. 22 Kms. Regarding other discrepancies pointed out by learned counsel as to the location of the dead body etc. This in my opinion requires a deeper probe in the matter which is only the function of the learned trial- Court, since at the bail stage the evidence has to be sifted summarily in order to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the accused can be connected to the crime in question.
8. ' Above are the reasons whereby this bail application was dismissed vide short order dated 29-9- 2005.