' KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.--- Through this application, applicant seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No,50 of 2007, for offences under section-320, 34, P.P.C. Of Police Station Gaheja, after his plea for post-arrest bail was declined by the learned Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, vide order dated 11-3-2009.
2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that one Mst. Rafiqan was married with co-accused Dil Murad, who used to maltreat her. It is alleged that on 27-12-2007, in the morning time, complainant and his son Allandad and Saindad were available in their house, when at about 7-00 a.m. a vehicle came and stopped outside their house, which attracted them, where they found Dil Murad, Manzoor Ahmed, Walidad and the present applicant Imamuddin Soomro, who alighted from the vehicle. It is alleged that by throwing dead body of Mst. Rafiqan from the vehicle in front of complainant party, co-accused Dil Murad declared that they have killed Mst. Rafiqan, and then accused boarding in the vehicle went away. Thereafter, the complainant by arranging conveyance took dead body and appeared at Police Station Gaheja and lodged the F. I . R.
3. The learned Advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that there is no evidence against the applicant except the extra-judicial confession of co-accused Dil Murad before the complainant party, that there was no motive for the applicant to commit this crime, that the applicant was found innocent during the investigation and his name was placed in Column No,2 of the challan, but on the verbal directions of the learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, the applicant was shown as accused in the challan, that on coming to know, the applicant voluntarily surrendered himself before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur and he was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail vide order dated 4-8-2008, he remained on bail without misuse thereof upto 25-2-2009 when the learned trial Court refusing the confirmation of the pre-arrest bail remanded the applicant to custody and that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case due to matrimonial dispute between applicant and the relatives of complainant party and as such the case of the applicant requires further enquiry into his guilt, and he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant. He has placed his reliance on 1982 SCM R 955 and 1992 PCr.LJ 1910.
4: Learned State Counsel frankly conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed before the Court with the assistance of learned State Counsel. I find that there is no eye-witness of the actual occurrence, the motive of this crime is directed against co-accused Dil Murad, who allegedly made extra-judicial confession before the complainant party, the applicant was found innocent during investigation and he has remained on interim pre-arrest bail from 4-8-2008 to 25-2-2009 and had also joined the trial.
6. In view of the above overall circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that applicant has made out his case for grant of concession of bail, therefore, bail is granted to the applicant, Imamuddin Soomro in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 (three lacs) subject to his furnishing solvent surety and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.