1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Through this application applicants Muhammad Ibrahim and Inayat Ali seek bail in Crime No, 503 of 2009 under sections 302, 109, 34, P.P.C. Of Police Station Sohrab Goth.
2. ' Briefly, on 6-8-2009 at about 1430 hours complainant Muhammad Siddiq lodged report that today at about 10-00 a.m. His relative Yar Muhammad and Sultan informed him on telephone that Ayaz Billa, Zulfiqar Ali, Ismail and Ibrahim escaped after killing his nephew Muhammad Aslam of Dildar Umrani Goth and they saw them when they were going through street. The complainant upon receiving such call rushed to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital and after Post Mortem he went to Saiful Goth were he came to know that the afore-said accused persons on account of personal enmity killed his nephew at the house of Inayat with fire-arm weapon at the instigation and in connivance with Inayat Ali.
3. ' Counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants being innocent have been falsely implicated in the instant crime and further that the accused had neither any enmity nor any motive to kill the deceased. It was further contended that the 4-1/2 hours delay in lodging the F.I.R.
4. Remain unexplained which leads to conclude that the time was consumed in consultation and to implicate the accused persons. It was further contended that the applicant/accused No,1 at the time of incident was in the hospital as in the early hours of the same day his sister was shot dead and he was available at Abbasi Shaheed Hospital as evident from Inquest Report of said crime. It was lastly contended that the deceased being friend of applicant/accused No,2 on the day of incident had stayed at his house and in the morning the applicant/accused No,2 was informed on telephone that the deceased has been shot dead and when he reached home he saw the dead body of victim and was made Mashir. Per learned counsel, the only eye-witness i,e, wife of accused Inayat stated that a man wearing helmet entered into the house and shot victim and also hit her on her arm.
5. ' On the other hand counsel for the complainant has contended that the applicants/accused were doubting some relations between deceased and the sister of accused persons and consequently the accused persons in the morning first shot their sister and then deceased. By declaring Karokari.
6. It was next contended that the accused persons after having lodged F.I.R. No,329 of 2009 reporting killing of their sister by a person wearing helmet yet lodged second F.I.R. Bearing No,411 of 2009 implicating the complainant party in the killing of the accused's sister by changing version. He has further referred to the copy of Roznamcha Entry reflecting that the dead body of Mst. Shamim, sister of the accused persons, was brought by one Abdul Ghafoor in order to show that the plea of alibi is false.
7. ' On the other hand, learned APG has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicants and contended that P.W. Sultan and Yar Muhammad have supported the version of the complainant in their statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. As to the plea of alibi, it was contended that the F.I.R.
8. Reporting the killing of accused sister bearing No,329 of 2009 was lodged on the same day at about 1520 hours and the inquest report showing the presence of accused No,1 at 10-45 a.m. Was manipulated.
9. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the record.
10. The delay of 4-1/2 hours in lodging the F.I.R. Is fully explained as the complainant after receiving the information on telephone went to the hospital and after he found the dead body he waited till the postmortem was over and thereafter recorded the F.I.R. As regard the plea of alibi, F.I.R. No,329 of 2009 under sections 302, 34 P.P.C. Was lodged at 1530 hours whereby the mother of the accused persons reported the killing of her daughter by an unknown person wearing helmet at about 8-15 a.m. On the same day while she was in the kitchen. Though the inquest report of Police Station Korangi Industrial Area reflects the presence of the applicant/accused No,1 and one Abdul Ghafoor at 10-45 a.m. But at bail stage such plea of alibi in terms of principle laid down by the apex Court in Ajmal Khan v. Liaqat Hayat and another PLD 1988 SC 97 cannot be accepted as the distance between the place of Wardat and the place where presence of the accused is shown is very short and further in view of the Roznamcha Entry of Police Station New Karachi Industrial Area recorded on 6-8-2009 at 10-45 a.m. At the instance of Dr. Muhammad Aslam shows that the dead body of Mst. Shamim was brought by one Abdul Ghafoor and not the accused. Consequently, such plea at this stage does not entitle the applicants to the concession of bail on such count. The statements of the witnesses suggest that both the incidents being result of honour killing, as the accused persons were doubting illegitimate relation between the victim and their sister. The accused Inayat has also not produced anything to show his absence from the place of Wardat i,e, his house where the deceased was killed. There appears to be sufficient material with the prosecution to connect the applicants/accused with the commission of the crime. In the circumstances no case of bail is made out, bail application is dismissed.