1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---By this application, applicant Saeed Chandio has sought bail in Crime No,258 of 2006 of P.S. Mehar registered for an offence under sections 302/34, P.P.C.
2. ' It is alleged in the F.I.R. Lodged on 3-10-2008 at 1500 hours, that on 2-10-2006 at 6.15 p.m., the complainant along with his uncle Muhammad Ishaque, after filling petrol from Shell Petrol Pump at Mehar Bypass, were going back to home on their motorcycle. In the way three persons were standing at the bridge on a motorcycle CD-70 red colour. In the meantime, complainant's uncle Ghulam Sarwar and cousin of his father namely Muhammad Bux also emerged there on their motorcycle. When the complainant party was crossing the accused persons, out of the three unknown accused, one fired from his pistol at Muhammad Ishaque, on receiving the same he along with complainant fell down from their motorcycle, then the accused decamped on their motorcycle. Muhammad Ishaque succumbed to his injuries while he was being shifted to hospital.
3. The F.I.R. Was registered against three unknown culprits.
4. ' During the investigation, after delay of 8 days i,e, on 10-10-2008 the I.O. Examined the P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. In which they implicated the present applicant and other co-accused.
5. ' The bail plea moved on behalf of the present applicant before the trial Court was rejected vide impugned order, dated, 26-6-2008.
6. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record.
7. ' Iris mainly contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been involved in the background of previous enmity with complainant party, local Zamindars and the Mehar Police. He further submitted that the F.I.R. Was lodged after delay of 21 hours without any plausible explanation. He pointed out that the F.I.R. Was lodged against three unknown accused persons and the present applicant along with other co-accused Matloob for the first time was implicated in this case by the P.Ws. In their statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Recorded on 10-10- 2008 i,e, after delay of 8 days from registration of F.I.R. Bufwithout explanation that as to why they did not disclose the names of accused to complainant or police while lodging F.I.R. And also failed to show that as to how they came to known that these are actual culprits. It is further submitted that later on further statements of P.Ws. Were recorded in which they exonerated the above said accused Matloob Chandio on the ground that he has given them affirmation on Holy Quran about his innocence. Learned counsel further contended that the present applicant was roped in this case on the basis of statement of co-accused Mir @ Murtaza which according to Qanoone- Shahadat Order, 1984 is of no evidentiary value and is inadmissible in the eyes of law. Besides all this, he pointed out that all the P.Ws. Are closely related with each other hence false implication under the above peculiar circumstances of the case cannot be ruled out. He relied upon the following cases:--
(1) Abdul Khaliq v. State (1996 SCM R 1553).
(2) S. Amanullah Shah v. State (PLD 1996 SC 241).
(3) Irshad v. State (2004 PCr.LJ 1246).
8. ' The learned State counsel states that there is no explanation that how the P.Ws. Came to know about the names of accused and there is no explanation of delay in recording 161, Cr.P.C.
9. Statement. She, therefore, conceded the grant of bail to the applicant.
10. ' The F.I.R. Was lodged against three unknown persons. The F.I.R. Was lodged after funeral of the deceased with unexplained delay of about twenty one hours. The P.Ws. Were named in F.I.R. But their statements were recoded after eight days without any explanation. In the statements the name of applicant was disclosed without mentioning the source through which the P.Ws. Tame to know about the name of the accused. The fact that F.I.R. Was lodged after delay of twenty one hours and the P.Ws'. Statements were recorded after eight days without explanation creates doubt about the involvement of the applicant in the offence. In the reported case of Syed Amanullah Shah supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth or probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, the accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail and in such a situation it would be better to keep him on bail than in the jail during the trial. In the reported case of Abdul Khaliq v. The State supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that late recording of statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of a prosecution witnesses reduces its value to nil unless there is plausible explanation for such delay.
11. In view of the above, it can be said that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant has committed an offence falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The applicant has made out a case of further enquiry and is entitled to concession of bail.
12. The bail was allowed by short order, dated 12-1-2009 and the above are the reasons.