1. ' MAQBOOL AHMAD AWAN, J.--The applicants seeks bail in Crime No,411 of 2008, of Police Station Zaman. Town for offence under section 302/34 P.P.C. He applied for bail and the same was dismissed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East vide order dated 22-5-2009.
2. ' Precisely the case of the prosecution is that on 4-11-2008 complainant Mst. Parveen lodged F.I.R. At P.S. Zaman. Town, stating therein that on the above date her husband Abdul. Hassan coming on his motorcycle along with his servant Usman, when he reached at inside Gali accused Muzzamil and his companions started firing upon him, due to which her husband received five bullets injuries and he died at the spot. On receipt of above information from P.W. Usman, the complainant lodged the F.I.R.
3. ' The police took up the investigation, arrested the applicant and after completing the usual investigation submitted the challan in the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate on 26-4-2009, who sent up the same to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, for trial.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant, contended that according to the F.I.R, the incident was informed to the complainant by P.W. Usman. According to the learned counsel, the said Usman was examined on two occasions i.e, 4-11-2008 and 5-4-2009, under section 161 Cr.P.C. The said Usman in his statement has not implicated the applicant, he however, stated that at the time of incident he had not seen the faces of accused persons as their faces were muffled. The learned counsel, also contended that the complainant's evidence is hearsay evidence, who lodged the F.I.R.
5. On the information communicated to her by P.W. Usman, therefore, the case of the prosecution is of two versions, one given by the complainant and other by P.W. Usman. In view of the position, according to the counsel, the case of the applicant requires further enquiry as Envisaged under sub-clause (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. ' Mr. Ghulam Nabi Simair, the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, vehemently opposed the bail of applicant.
7. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance perused the material available on the file.
8. ' From the perusal of record, it appears that' the complainant is not the eyewitness of the incident, however, she lodged the F.I.R. On the basis of information conveyed to her by P.W. Usman, who at the time of incident was with the deceased. It also appears that the said P.W. Usman when was examined, under section 161, Cr .P.C. , did not disclose the name of accused however, had stated that he saw the accused persons having their faces muffled.
9. ' In view of the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the case of applicant falls within the scope of further enquiry and I therefore, allow this application, and direct that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs,4,00,000 and P,R.
10. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.