1. ' KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.--- This third bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Muhammad through his Advocate Muhammad Akbar Khan. His Bail Application No,796 of 2007 was dismissed as not pressed vide order, dated 25-9-2007. In his second Bail Application No,7 of 2008, direction was given to the trial Court to record the statement of P.W. Rashid and Arshad within two months from the date of receipt of the order by trial Court.
2. ' Upon expiry of two months' period, the applicant had repeated the bail application in the trial Court, which was rejected and he had applied to this Court vide Criminal Bail Application No,7 of 2008. By order, dated 18-3-2008, co-accused Majid, Amjad and Muhammad were granted bail by me as they were not attributed fatal injury and their case required further inquiry under section 497 subsection (2), Cr.P.C. The Advocate for the applicant had not pressed bail application of applicant Muhammad, and it was dismissed with the direction to record the evidence of material witnesses within two months from the date of the order.
3. ' Again applicant had moved Bail Application No,811 of 2008, on 11-7-2008, mainly on the ground that the directions given by this Court twice have not been complied with. This Court vide order dated 1-8-2008, had called comments from trial Court. The learned Incharge VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, had submitted the report that witnesses were available on number of dates but case could not proceed due to transfer of the Presiding Officer, elections' work and strikes of lawyers. The comments of the learned Incharge, Additional. Sessions Judge were accepted and an order was passed on 20-8-2008, to record the evidence of eye-witnesses Rashid and Arshad within one month from the date of receipt of order, dated 20-8-2008. In the meantime, the present bail application was kept pending.
4. ' On 25-9-2008, the learned counsel has submitted a statement and stated that evidence of P.W.
5. Abdullah and P.W.2 Rashid Hussain, has been recorded. He has submitted the copies of the statement of both the witnesses. Abdullah is son of deceased Nazar Muhammad, who had sustained injuries on his head allegedly inflicted by applicant Muhammad, other eye-witness P.W.2 Rashid Hussain has been examined by the police. In his cross-examination, he has stated that "it is a fact that I have not mentioned in my 155, Cr.P.C. Statement that accused Muhammad has inflicted something on the head of the deceased Nazar Muhammad".
6. ' Learned counsel in his bail application has taken the ground that from the entire prosecution evidence, it has been established that deceased had received only one blow on his head. The learned counsel has stated that F.I.R. Was lodged after more than 48 hours of the incident and there is a conflict between the contents of F.I.R. And first statement of P.W. Rashid recorded under section 155, Cr.P.C. In Roznamcha Entry No,47 at Police Station Baghdadi.
7. ' The learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied upon the case reported as Khalilur Rehman v. The State 2008 YLR 1575, it has been observed in this authority that:--- "for granting of benefit of doubt to accused it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts, if a simple circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of accused, then he will be entitled to such benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right."
8. ' In another case reported in Jaffar and others v. The State 1980 SCMR page 784, it has been observed:--- "it was next contended that from the available material it could not be said as to who caused the fatal injuries, which left room for consideration as to the common intention of the others to kill the deceased."
9. ' In case Amir Buksh v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ page 2323, it has been held that:--- "identity of main accused who ;aused injuries when remaining doubtful are debatable, case, held, would fall within purview of further inquiry."
10. ' In case Muhammad Hanif v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 70, it has been observed that supplementary statements recorded on 25-8-1995 being an afterthought need not be given the weight.
11. ' The learned State Counsel opposed the bail application and has stated that applicant being the main accused is not entitled to the grant of bail.
12. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Fazlur Rehman, the learned State Counsel and have perused the record as well as evidence recorded by the trial Court. The case disclosed in the F.I.R. Is that complainant Abdullah on 26-5-2007 at 0200 hours at Baghdadi Police Station had lodged F.I.R. No,132 of 2007, in respect of an incident, which had taken place on 24-5- 2007 at 1800 hours at Ghulam Muhammad Gangozad Road, Phool Pati Line, Gali No,4, which is at a distance of 1/2 kilometer from the police station towards the south. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. That when S.-I. Taj Nabi of Police Station Baghdadi, Layari Town Karachi had reached Civil Hospital in connection with Roznamcha Entry No,48, he was informed that the dead body of deceased Nazar Muhammad son of Muhammad Yaqoob aged about 47 years M.L. No,2622 of 2007 dated 24-5- 2007 has been removed by his relatives from Civil Hospital to Ghazi Town Malir. A.S.-I. Reached at Malir Ghazi Town and had recorded statement of complainant Abdullah, who is son of the deceased. Statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. Was recorded on 25-5-2007 at 2350 hours at House No,253, Malir Ghazi Town.
13. ' Complainant in his statement stated that he lives along with his family at the house situated at Gangozad Road, Dubai Chowk on 24-5-2007, he was present at his house when his uncle Muhammad (present applicant) had abused his mother. His mother sent for her brothers, namely, Rashid and Arshad, who lived in Malir Ghazi Town. At around 6-00 p.m. They had reached at their house and made inquiry from his uncle Muhammad about the reasons of abusing. In the meantime, accused Muhammad got provoked, his son namely, Abdul Malik and his nephews, namely, Majid and Amjad both sons of Khudadad also came there and has started beating Rashid and Arshad. In the meantime, accused Muhammad had caused Belcha injury at the head of Nazar Muhammad, who had fallen down. He was taken to Civil Hospital, where he was admitted on Bed No,11 and had died during the treatment. His uncle Rashid and Arshad have received minor injuries and were discharged.
14. In the evidence recorded in the Court so far witness Rashid Hussain has admitted that he had not stated in his statement recorded under section 155, Cr.P.C. That accused Muhammad had inflicted something on the head of deceased Nazar Muhammad.
15. ' I am conscious of the fact that at this stage of the case, it is not proper for the High Court Judge to go through the evidence recorded by the trial Court and appreciate it. However, there is no specific bar in this connection. The superior Courts have repeatedly held that while deciding the bail application the Court can glance over the evidence available on record and can give tentative assessm ent of the material so far collected.
16. ' In the present case, request for bail to the present applicant was declined twice by the High Court and now for the third time this application is being heard after evidence of two eye-witnesses including the complainant has been recorded. The grounds of inordinate and unexplained delay in recording of the F.I.R., contradiction in the contents of Roznamcha entry and in the contents of F,I.R., the close relationship of the witnesses with the deceased and their hostility towards the accused have persuaded me to hold this case at this stage as one of further inquiry under section 497 subsection (2), Cr.P.C.
17. ' Without appreciating the evidence available on record, on my tentative assessment of the facts so far available on record, I grant bail to the accused upon his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
18. ' All the above observations made by me, are tentative in nature and trial Court should not be influenced by it while deciding the case. The trial Court shall decide the case upon basis of evidence which comes on record strictly upon merits.