1. ' BIN YAMIN, J.--- This order will dispose of bail application made on behalf of accused Zulfiqar son of Bagh Ali who is detained in Crime No,12 of 2007 registered for an offence under sections 364, 365, 337-A(i), 148, 149, P.P.C. At Police Station Muhammadpur Odho.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that on 26-2-2007 complainant Muhammad Ali lodged F.I.R. Stating therein that Mst. Rajan/Faji informed him that about 4 days ago at about noon time accused Sadar son of Bagh Ali passed from their lands, to whom she restrained on the ground that' there are ladies at that place' and he should not go from there. On this 'Sadar became annoyed and abused Mst. Raji wife of complainant. It is further stated that thereafter complainant, his wife and relatives Dilmurad and Norez went to the house of accused where they met his brother Zulfiqar Ali to whom they informed about the earlier incident. On this some hot words were exchanged in between complainant party and brother of the accused. In the meantime accused Sadar and Mumtaz armed with hatchet and Lathi came out from their house and attacked upon complainant. It is alleged that in the incident accused Sadar gave backside of hatchet blow to complainant, whereas accused Mumtaz caused him Lathi blow on his back. On entrities of women the culprits then went away. Complainant, then went to police station to lodge F.I.R. But the Nekmards of the area restrained him from lodging F.I.R. Of the matter with police. Again on 24-2-2007 at 5-00 p.m.
3. Complainant, P.W. Dilmurad and Norez were standing near their houses where Mst. Raji wife of complainant was also available. At that time accused Sadar armed with gun, Zulfiqar armed with rifle, Mumtaz Ali alias Muhib Ali armed with K.K. And others came there. Accused Sadar caught hold of Mst. Raji and dragged her, whereas other accused threatened complainant and above named P.Ws. Not to intervene. Thereafter, accused took away Mst. Raji forcibly from the place of incident.
4. After the incident complainant narrated facts of the case to his Nekmard who advised him to lodge F.I.R. Of the case, hence the F.I.R.
5. ' After registration of the case applicant/accused was arrested on 10-8-2008. Earlier bail application made on behalf of the applicant/ accused was rejected by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad where this case is pending. Hence this bail application.
6. ' Heard Advocate of the applicant/accused, learned State Counsel and perused the case papers. It is contended on behalf of the applicant/accused that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. There is also unexplained delay of two days in lodging of the F.I.R. Which shows that the F.I.R. Was lodged after due deliberation and consultation. That the complainant Muhammad Ali, P.W. Dilmurad and Norez in their respective affidavits filed on the record have stated that Mst. Raji was dragged for some distance but she was not taken away by the accused persons. They have further stated that they had not properly identified the accused and had given his name as suspected culprit of the case. That in view of the filing of affidavits of the complainant and P.Ws., the case of the applicant/accused has become a case of further inquiry. That the learned lower Court at the time of rejection of the bail application had not taken these facts into consideration, he therefore, requested for grant of bail to the applicant/accused.
7. Learned State Counsel has not opposed this application and given his no objection to the grant of this bail application.
8. ' In view of the above noted discussion as the complainant and other two persons who are said to have witnessed the incident have filed their respective affidavits, in which they have clearly stated that Mst. Raji was dragged for some distance and not taken away by the accused and furthermore they have given the names of applicant/accused as culprit of this case on the basis of suspicion. In presence of these versions of complainant and his witnesses, case of the accused clearly falls within the purview of a case of further inquiry. Therefore, in my opinion, applicant/accused at this stage is entitled to the grant of bail, I, therefore, allow this application and order that applicant/accused be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 with P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.