1. ' ABDUR RAHMAN FARUQ PIRZADA, J.---This is a bail application on behalf of applicant Mansoor Ahmed in the case. Vide F.I.R. No, 206 of 2008 Police Station, Pano Akil for offence under sections 302, 201, 310-A, 419, 210-B, 117, 109, 143, 350 and 355, P.P.C.
2. ' The F.I.R. Was registered by complainant A.S.-I. Mazhar.Ali at Police Station, Pano Akil on 26-8-2008 at 1000 hours. The incident allegedly occurred on 25-8-2008 or prior to that As per F.I.R., the complainant party viz police personnel had received information through spy sources as well as through the newspaper KAWISH dated 26-8-2008 and KTN News Channel that applicant/accused Mansoor Ahmed along with his companions had murdered his wife Mst. Rindal Jatoi and had got her dead body lost after making an allegation of KARAP against her with his relative Amanullah Jatoi. Allegedly such JIRGAH was held by the private Nekmards and penalty was imposed Amanullah Jatoi pertaining to his three minor nieces and cash amount of Rs, 1,20,000 on receipt of such information the complainant along with his subordinate staff went to the Otaq of accused Mithal Jatoi on 26-8-2008 at 9 a.m. Where seven accused persons were sitting, who on enquiry gave their names as Mansoor Ahmed, Muharram Ali, Muhammad Mithal, Haji Mubarak, Muhammad Jindal. Shaman Ali and Jhangal Ali Jatoi by caste. The said seven accused informed him that accused along with other 10/15 persons of their community had held a private JIRGAH and the above Faisla was made. According to F.I.R., the above named accused persons lad conspired and as a result of their joint planning, the accused Mansoor along with his companions had murdered his wife Mst. Rindal and her dead body was lost.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no ocular evidence available, to implicate the applicant in present case. No private witnesses were examined in the case, so also no person came forward for lodging the F.I.R. As per F.I.R., the case is based upon presumption that the accused along with his companions viz seven accused persons named in the F.I.R. Committed the murder of Mst. Rindal. Learned counsel has stated that six co-accused, persons have already been granted bail by learned trial Court and the case of applicant, stands at par to that of the case of co- accused.
4. ' Learned Assistant A.-G. Has conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant, while submitting that as per F.I.R. There is no ocular evidence against the applicant. Not a single private person was examined under section 161, Cr.P.C. Only the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of police personnel, were recorded, however, such statements do not bear the date on which they were recorded.
5. ' I have considered the above submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and learned Assistant A.-G.
6. ' Admittedly, alleged incident of murder of Mst.Rindal was not witnessed by any person. The F.I.R.
7. Was stated to have been registered, On the basis of information mainly through the daily newspaper and electronic media. However, even no person belonging to the newspaper/media was examined as a witness. Obviously a presumption has been made in F.I.R. That the applicant along with co-accused persons committed the alleged offence, However, any accused person cannot be allowed to be incarcerated for an allegation which is simply based upon suspicion or presumption. Even, though in our society, nowadays the incidents of murder in the name of honour are taking place, which is really the sad state of affairs; however, a judicial order denying concession of bail has to be passed on the basis of some cogent material on record, which is lacking in the present case. Six co-accused persons have already been granted bail by learned trial Court. As per F.1.R., it has been alleged that the accused persons named in F.I.R. Jointly planned to commit the alleged offence, whereafter applicant Mansoor Ahmed along with his companions committed the murder of Mst. Rindal. Apparently the above allegation is levelled against all the seven accused persons named in the F.I.R., as such the case of applicant stands on identical footing to that of six co-accused persons already granted bail by the learned trial Court.
8. Accordingly, I do not find any justification to withhold the same concession of bail in favour of applicant.
9. ' In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, this application is allowed and the applicarft may be released on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned-trial Court.