1. ' IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.---Applicant Haji Munir Leghari is facing trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Kandiaro in Crime No,385 of 2008 for falling offence under sections 302, 34 and 403, P.P.C.
2. ' The prosecution case in emphaze is that Muhammad Ramzan Brohi is two number brother of complainant and they are six brothers in all and they have business of seasonal crop. There was a dispute in between deceased Muhammad Ramzan and Niaz Muhammad alias Nazu Leghari and dispute was settled between deceased Muhammad Ramzan and Niaz Muhammad alias Nazu. On the night of 16-11-2008 at 8-00 p.m. Complainant along with his brother Alan' Brohi and deceased Muhammad Ramzan Brohi were available at their shop whereas Niaz Muhammad alias Nazu came and asked deceased Muhammad Ramzan to accompany with him to his house as some guests are available and he wants that deceased who accompany with him for dinner. The complainant further stated that he along with his brother Alam maternal nephew Muhammad Sharif, deceased Muhammad Ramzan accompanied Niaz Muhammad alias Nazu and went to the house of Khan Muhammad Leghari, where Haji Munir and two unknown persons were also available there.
3. Whereupon Niaz Muhammad alias Nazu asked the complainant to leave deceased Muhammad Ramzan and after taking dinner and chit chatting he would return back. Niaz Muhammad alias Nazu along with deceased Muhammad Ramzan went towards his house but deceased Muhammad Ramzan did not return back. Whereupon complainant along with his brother Muhammad Alam and maternal nephew Muhammad Shareef went to the house of Niaz Muhammad alias Nazu at 8-00 a.m. Where they reached near the house of Khan Muhammad Leghari in the sugarcane crop they saw that dead body of Ramzan was lying and having injuries on forehead and cash of Rs,10.000 one golden chain and mobile phone were also missing. The complainant further stated that they searched for Niaz, Muhammad alias Nazu but he was not available in his house so complainant left his brother Muhammad Alam and maternal nephew Muhammad Sharif at the dead-body of deceased Muhammad Ramzan and lodged his F.I.R. With police.
4. ' During investigation police recorded 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the witnesses on 25th November, 2008 whereupon all the witnesses have supported the contentions of F. I . R.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Shyam Lal A.P.G. For the State and perused the F.I.R. And relevant record available with the bail application.
6. ' Learned counsel for the applicant argued that this is an unwitnessed incident and only .Allegation against the applicant is that the deceased was last seen in company of the applicant and others, Learned counsel further argued that nothing incriminating was recovered during investigation. The 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the witnesses recorded after 8 years of the incident without any plausible explanation. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the case of Gadal v. The State 2010 P Cr.L.T 280 and contended that the case of the applicant falls under the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
7. ' Mr. Shyam Lal learned A.P.G. For the State argued that the F.I.R. Is prompt and witnesses have supported the contentions with the complainant in 161, Cr.P.C. The police deliberately in connivance with the applicant/accused has recorded the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. With the delay of 8 days which cannot be considered at bail stage. Learned A.P.G. Has relied upon case of Sajid and 2 others v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1455 and contended that at this stage the applicant does not deserve grant, of bail.
8. I have considered submissions advanced at the bar. It is admitted fact that the name of the applicant does not transpire in the F.I.R. And allegation against the applicant is of last seen which is to be considered after adducing evidence at the trial. It is also admitted fact that nothing incriminating was recovered during investigation from the possession of the applicant. In the case of Sajid and two others supra facts are that the deceased was subjected to carnal intercourse and the witnesses have seen the deceased lastly in the company of the -applicant/accused and there was no enmity in between the parties to implicate the applicant. The facts in the case of Gadal supra are that on the instigation of Gadal accused Barkat Ali fired from his kilashnikov which hit at Mir Muhammad who succumbed to the injuries and died at the spot. The case of Gadal is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of this case. However, the case of Sajid and two others supra relied by the learned A.P.G. For the State are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present. Case allegations are against Niaz Muhammad alias Nazu that by taking away the deceased with him and there is no evidence available on record that the deceased was seen lastly in company of applicant Munir. In these circumstances the case of applicant. Munir falls under the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Hence I grant bail to the applicant subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 (Two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial.