The facts according to F. I. R. Lodged by one Mst. Hanifa on 9th July, 1979 at Police Station, Ahmedpur of District Khairpur are that her husband Mohammad Sachal had died about 3-4 years back leaving behind two sons namely, Ghulam Rasool aged 25 years and Mohammad Yousuf aged about 10 years, who reside with her. The house of "Eiso" is situated adjacent to her house and there is a public street intervening them. The applicant is related to the complainant. It was about two days before lodging of this F I.R. When Ali Bux had come and stayed in the house of the complainant as their guest Ghulam Rasool (the deceased) after having breakfast a day prior to lodging of this F.I.R, had left his house to have a look at his cotton crop while the complainant and her son Mohammad Yousaf, Dinoo, her son-in-law and Ali Bux were in the house. It was after a short time of his leaving the house when Ghulam Rasool raised cries from northern side of his house. The complainant Mohammad Yousaf and Ali Bux ran towards there and found that Eiso (the applicant) was holding a wooden "Patti" in his hand and inflicting blows on the head of Ghulam Rasool. The other accused namely, Satleh and Rahat Maitlo were also standing there. Ghulam Rasool fell on the ground as a result of injuries and the accused ran away towards their houses when the complainant party reached there. The complainant party found Ghulam Rasool lying unconscious and was bleeding from mouth and nostrils. The complainant Mohammad Yousaf and Ali Bux thereafter removed the injured to Civil Hospital, Khairpur in a Rickshaw for treatment where he died due to above-mentioned injuries. The complainant party remained with the injured in the hospital on the preceding night and filed the F. I. R. On the next day after his death. The motive as shown in the F. I. R. Was that the applicant was suspecting his were Mst. Gullan to be on illicit terms with the deceased.
2. The Police after usual investigation sent up the present applicant alongwith two others to stand trial under section 303/34, P. P. C.
3. The bail application was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Khairpur, who was pleased to grant bail to Rahat and Mohammad Saleh and prayer for bail of the present applicant was dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the F. I. R. Has been lodged after 18 hours delay in spite of the fact that the applicant was admitted in the Civil Hospital, which is in the District Headquarter where police station was available and there was nothing to prevent the com-- plainant to lodge his F.I.R. There. He further contends that on the contrary Ghulam Rasool (deceased) was brought to Civil Hospital for treatment by his brother-in-law, namely Din Mohammad whose statement was recorded by the duty Doctor before his admission in the hospital where he had stated that the deceased had received injuries as his bullock had hit him in his house. The learned counsel therefore contends that two versions have been given by the complainant party and the applicant has been totally exonerated in first though implicated in the last one which brings this case within the scope of further inquiry as contemplated by clause (2) of sec--tion 497, Cr. P. C.
5. The learned counsel for the State opposes grant of bail on the ground that the complainant has been assigned a part of inflicting injury on the person of the deceased but is not able to explain this inordinate delay on the part of the complainant-party and fact of giving two versions at two different places.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and State. I have also gone through the statement of Din Mohammad, at the time of admission of the deceased in the hospital, which is duly certified by the Medical Officer. It is quite different from the version in the F. I. R. For which no proper explanation is being advanced by the prosecution. I, therefore feel that two versions advanced by the complainant party coupled with a fact of inordinate delay in lodging F. I. R. Are sufficient factors which require further inquiry as contemplated by clause (2) of section 497, Cr. P.
C. Therefore without going into the merits of the case, I grant bail to the applicant, who shall be released on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 20,000 and P. R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge Khairpur.