' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---Applicant/accused Habibullah son of Attaullah is booked in Crime No,486 of 2010 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Super Market, Liaquatabad Town, Karachi. In the first place the applicant approached the learned trial Court and moved bail application being Bail Application No,266 'of 2011 which was dismissed per order dated 26-3-2011 by learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central, and through this bail application the present applicant has applied for bail.
2. The case of the prosecution as setout in the F.I.R. Is that with reference to Report No,7 Roznamcha-e-Aam of Super Market Police Station S.-I. Zulfiqar Ali Chaudhary after completing process under section 174, Cr.P.C. Returned from Abbasi Shaheed Hospital and affirmed that after receiving information reached at Graveyard C/1 Area, Liaquatabad and found the dead-body of unknown deceased aged about 24/25 years which was lying in KKF Ambulance, dead- body of deceased was taken to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital; S.I. Along with PC Races Ahmed reached at Abbasi Shaheed Hospital; S.I. Completed the process under section 174, Cr.P.C. Of dead-body in mortuary of Abbasi Shaheed Hospital; three bullets of lethal weapons hit on the said dead-body one on head and two other on chest thereafter given written letter to Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Channa, MLO, for cause of death; MLO vide P.M. No,694/10 informed about the cause of death; due to non- availability of address of relatives, legal heirs as well as name and father's name of deceased they were never traced out, therefore, dead-body of deceased sent through Eidhi Ambulance along with written letter to Cold Storage of Eidhi Home, Hohrab Goth, to deposit there in trust for three days; it is found uptil the investigation as well as facts and circumstances of the case that 8/10 hours from the receiving information some unknown accused person/persons due to unknown dispute murdered the above unknown deceased after firing upon him through lethal weapons at Graveyard of C/1 Area, Liaquatabad, Opposite Madni Masjid; and, after returning at Police Station S.-I. Registered F.I.R. Against unknown accused person/persons in respect of above case under section 302/34, P.P.C.
3. In support of his bail application, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the incident took place on 3-12-2010 whereas the present applicant was taken into custody by the police on 232-2011 under section 54, Cr.P.C. And while he was in custody of. He police he was alleged to have been shown arrested in the present crime on 24-2-2010. Learned counsel says that no identification parade as required under the law has been carried out. He further says that no recovery of any sought was affected from the present applicant. He also submitted that no confessional statement of the applicant/accused under section 164, Cr.P.C. Was recorded. He lastly argued that the incident is unseen and none of the prosecution witnesses has seen the applicant committing the offence.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant says that the learned trial Court has not adverted to the above submissions and has passed the order in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind as according to learned counsel there was no material available on record which connects the present applicant with the commission of offence. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case of Ghazi Sarfraz v. The State (2008 PCr.LJ 1520).
5. Learned A.P.-G. At, the very outset admitted that there is no material available with him which connects the applicant with the commission of offence as dead-body of the deceased was found from the graveyard and no one has seen the incident. Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Inspector Hatim Khan Marwat present in Court says that apart from extra judicial confession made by the applicant/accused there is no material available with him which connects the present applicant/ accused with the commission of offence. On query from the Court as to whether statement of the applicant under section 164, Cr.P.C. Was recorded I.O. Stated that the applicant was not willing for the same.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record and the case-law cited by learned counsel for the applicant.
7. A tentative assessm ent of the record says that admittedly incident is unseen, present applicant was in custody of the Police under section 54, Cr.P.C. And he has been shown to have arrested by the police in the present case. It is an admitted position that no identification parade was conducted so also no confessional statement was recorded. Additionally, no recovery whatsoever was. Affected. Prima facie the applicant is not connected with the commission of offence and his case requires further enquiry. The applicant is admitted to bail on his furnishing surety in, the sum of Rs,100,000.00 (Rupee one hundred thousand) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
8. The observations made in the above order are tentative in nature and shall not affect the trial of the case.