1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.---An F.I.R. Was registered at police station North Nazimabad on 26-9- 2008 at 1330 hours. It was stated by the complainant that he along with his brothers resided at A/78, Roidad Nagar, Papash Nagar, Nazimabad and his brother Arsand worked at the shop of his real uncle, who was owner of a shop in Al-Haram Market. On 25-9-2008 in the evening time, complainant had stated that Arshad left the shop of his uncle for going to his house, but did not reach home. Complainant stated that they searched for Arsand and on the following day he went to shop of his uncle who was also clueless regarding Arshad. At about 11.00 a.m. His uncle informed him on telephone to come to this shop and when he reached there his uncle disclosed to him that some one had murdered Arsand and his dead body was lying at KDA Chowrangi, opposite Azeem Children School, and the dead body had been taken to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital. Complainant stated that he reached Abbasi Shaheed Hospital and identified dead body of his brother Arshad, who had been murdered with some sharp edged weapon.
2. ' F.I.R. Was registered and after registration of F.I.R. Police started investigation and eventually police arrested the present applicant. After the applicant was arrested, on his pointation from his house police recovered a hatchet (Toka) as Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that it was a blind F.I.R. And applicant's name did not appear in the F.I.R. Only thing common between applicant and Arshad was that applicant used to work at same shop where deceased was working. Learned counsel further submitted that applicant was arrested on 3-11-2008 and it was shown on 7-11-2008 that the hatchet, blood-stained clothes and blanket were recovered on pointation of the accused. He submitted that it is also stated that SIM was also recovered from him. There was no direct evidence against the accused and the hatchet or the clothes were not sent to any expert to find out opinion about blood if there was any on them. He further submitted that it was alleged that the SIM was used on the night of the incident by the accused, who called his wife, but statement of wife was not recorded. Learned counsel submitted that in a case which can carry possible punishment of death, there must be highest credible evidence available and in case of circumstantial evidence each link in the chain of evidence must be clearly an unimpeachably established . He further submitted that the accused had been behind bars since 3-11-2008 and these days the trial Court is vacant.
3. Learned counsel relied upon Javed Iqbal v. The State, 2008 PCr.LJ 1578, Ghazi Sarfraz v. The State, 2008 PCr.LJ 1520, Muhammad Ali v. The State PCr.LJ 87, Qurban Ali alias Fouji v. The State, 2007 PCr.LJ 647, Ghula Qasim and another v. The State and another 2008 PCr.LJ 1356, Shahzia Kousar v.
4. State and another, PLJ 2008 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 170 and MIR Hazar Malik v. The State 1999 SCMR 1377.
5. ' Learned A.P.G. Conceded that name of the accused is not included in the F.I.R., but he submitted that there is very strong circumstantial incriminating evidence.
6. ' Learned counsel for complainant read the statement under section 168 Cr.P.C. And submitted that during investigation record of number of mobile phone of the deceased was obtained from the concerned institution which led to be suspicious number to which calls were made on the night of murder between 4 & 6 p.m. When record of that phone was obtained it transpired that it was a phone in the use of wife and sister-in-law of the present applicant. Motive was stated that about eight months ago deceased had joined his uncle's work where previously it was the accused, who was running the show. It further transpired on investigation that the deceased having seen conduct of the accused had told him that after Eid he would remove him from employment and it is for that reason that deceased had been murdered by the applicant. Learned counsel pointed out that the hatchet, blanket etc. Were recovered from the residence of the accused on his pointation.
7. ' I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.
8. ' In Javed Iqbal's case no accused was nominated in the F.I.R, but during investigation petitioner was arrested, who allegedly led police to recovery of incriminating evidence consisting of a shoe and the piece of mobile phone SIM etc. And also pointed out to a deserted house where the deceased had been murdered. The honourable Court came to the conclusion that the alleged collection of shoe as well as SIM card on pointation of accused was effected more than two months after the occurrence and therefore heavy responsibility was on the prosecution to establish and to explain through evidence as to how one shoe remained lying at place of occurrence for such a long time. In Ghazi Sarfraz's case, again there was no direct evidence of murder and accused was arrested on the basis of statement made by him before police in judicial lock-up. Since no other evidence was available accused was enlarged on bail. In Muhammad Ali's case, accused was arrested seventeen days after occurrence and police had recovered blood- stained clothes and the murder weapons at his pointation and the Court holding that it is difficult to believe that after the murder of deceased applicant will keep evidence with him for such a long time allowed the bail application. In Qurban Ali's case facts were that prosecution witnesses along with son of one of the witnesses were going along railway track at night, when they heard fire-arm shot and after opening torchlight they saw three persons duly armed with fire-arms and hatchet and in the meanwhile son of one of the witnesses after raising cries fell down on the ground. He was taken to hospital but he expired. Names of the accused were not stated in the F.I.R. And no identification parade was held. Judicial Magistrate discharged accused on 26-5-2006. On the same day statement of prosecution witnesses were recorded under section 161 and section 164 Criminal Procedure Code and the applicant was named as culprit of the incident with recovery of crime weapon on 1-6-2005. Identification parade was held on the very next day. The High Court held that except recovery of weapon no overt act is appearing against the applicant nor contents of F.I.R. Revealed that out of persons, who were seen by the prosecution at the place of incident, who was main culprit who caused injury to the deceased. In the circumstances bail was allowed. In Ghulam Qasim's case complainant implicated accused after one month and eight days and neither disclosed source of his information nor any reason was given as to how he remained mum for such a long period. No specific role was assigned to the accused. Bail was consequently allowed. In Mir Hazar Malik's case name of the accused was not mentioned in the F.I.R. But he was subsequently involved in commission of crime. Prosecution relied upon extra judicial confession and the Supreme Court held that extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon and bail was allowed.
9. The facts of the present case are quite distinguishable. Had it been only a case of recovery of hatchet, clothes or blanket on pointation of the accused, certainly accused would have been entitled to bail. But this is not the only piece of evidence. Calls were made from telephone number of the deceased, when the record of that telephone number was obtained from the telephone company it was found that calls were made on the eve of incident between 4 and 6 p.m. When record of the phone to which the calls were checked it was found to be phone number in the use of wife and the sister-in-law of the accused. This when juxtaposed with a reasonable, plausible motive does create a chain link of circumstantial evidence. At the bail stage the Court is not required to go deeper into the evidence. All that it is to see is that whether, prima facie, accused is reasonably connected with the crime or not. In this case chain appears to link the accused with the crime. Consequently, this bail application is dismissed.
10. ' Needless to observe that whatever has been stated above shall, in no way, influence the trial Court while arriving at conclusion as to guilt or innocence, after the trial.