1. MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---The applicants are booked in Crime No, 14 of 2009 registered with Police Station Baradi Jatoi, for offences under sections 302, 396, 397, 148, 149, P.P.C. and 17/4, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. ' Facts of the case, in nutshell, as per F.I.R. are that Complainant Ali Murad lodged the same on 12- 10-2009 by alleging that due to murderous dispute between Complainant party and Sanwan and others. Complainant's cousins Ali Nawaz and others had shifted to Bagerji, and later on, they were asked by Complainant party to return the Faisla. While returning, Complainant's cousins Ali Nawaz, Wazir and others along with their cattle, when reached near village Mir Muhammad on 11-10-2009 at 08-00 p.m., Accused Wali Muhammad, Ali Sher, armed with guns Allah Dito, Hameed, Manthar and three unidentified persons who were armed With K.Ks, came and due to murderous dispute fired at Complainant party and took away 14 buffaloes. The Complainant party after the accused had gone, saw Ali Nawaz and Wazir, who had sustained injuries, were died. Due to odd hours, F.I.R. could not be registered and the same was registered on the next day.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicants has pointed out that as per F.I.R., incident took place at 08-00 p.m. on 11-10-2009 and F.I.R. was lodged at 1600 hours on 12-10-2010, therefore, delay of 20 hours has been caused in lodging, of F.I.R. He says that allegations in the F.I.R. are general in nature. He further says that ocular version is not supported by the medical evidence, He further says that incident took place in the night at 8-00 p.m. and dead bodies were taken by the complainant party to Hospital at 6-00 a.m. on 12-10-2009 and after post mortem, dead bodies were returned to complainant party at 7-00 a.m. on 12-10-2009. He has pointed out that by that time, F.I.R. was not lodged; however, Mashirnama of dead bodies and the place of Vardat carry the Crime number so also Mashirnama further shows that dead bodies were lying at the spot at 2-00 p.m. on 12-10-2009.
4. He states that Danishnama shows that one injury, was caused to Wazir and two injuries to Ali Nawaz, whereas post mortem report reveals that five injuries were sustained by Wazir and three by Ali Nawaz. Learned Counsel, due to aforesaid discrepancies, says that case of prosecution is doubtful and at the bail stage, such benefit be extended to present applicants; as the allegation in F.I.R. are general in nature.
5. ' On the other hand, learned APG has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that two innocent persons died and case falls in prohibitory clause and present Applicants are not entitled to bail. He further says that medical version fully supports the ocular evidence. He further says that no argument, with regard to robbing of 14 buffalos, has been made by learned Counsel for the applicants. On question to learned Counsel for the applicants, he submitted that no such recovery of buffaloes, has been effected from the present applicants.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel for parties and have gone through the record.
7. From the perusal of record, it appears that ocular version of the case is not supported by the medical version. There is inordinate delay in lodging of F.I.R. which has not been explained by the prosecution. There is doubt in the medical evidence as well as Mashirnama, Danishnama and other documents, which were prepared much prior to lodging of F.I.R., carried the F.I.R. number which creates suspicion and makes this case a case of further enquiry in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. ' Accordingly, I admit the applicants to bail on their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000 (Rupees two lac) each and execution of Personal Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
9. ' I am mindful of the fact that at the bail stage, deeper appreciation of the evidence cannot be gone into and tentative assessm ent is to be made just to find out as to whether the applicants are connected with the offence or not. I have tentatively assessed the record available in file and have come to above conclusion. My aforesaid findings are tentative in nature and will not affect the pending proceedings before the learned trial Court. The trial Court shall be at liberty to pass judgment strictly in accordance with law and the material produced before it.