1. ORDER MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---This. Is a bail application under sections 497/498, Cr.P.C. Filed by the applicant.
2. The facts as set out in the F.I.R. Are as under:-- "Complaint is that I reside at the above captioned address; that about two years back accused Abdul Rahman son of Dhani Bux by caste Korai and others had committed the murder of my uncle Imdad Ali, such murder case was registered against accused Abdul Rehman's and others by my uncle Mukhtar Ali at Police Station Pano Akil, in said case my father Anwar Ali son of Muhammad Khan Korai aged about 50 years and cousin Khalid Hussain Korai and witnesses, therefore accused Abdul Rehman's and others time to time used to say that withdraw the said murder case else you would be murdered; that today my father Anwar Ali had come to attend the Sessions Court Sukkur, while I, my cousin Khalid Hussain son of Mukhtar Ali Korai and Hussain Muhammad son of Jan Muhammad had also come to Sukkur with some work; after completing the work I contacted to father through mobile phone, who said that now I have got free from Court, you come at Central Jail-II Sukkur, I also came there, thereafter will proceed together, after that we reached at Central Jail-II. Where I met with my father and boarded in wagon, my father seated on front seat while we all three sat on back seats and wagon proceeded towards Rohri side: that it was 1400 hours when reached at Beri Chowk NHW takri, where 5 persons on two motorcycles came in front of wagon who got stopped the wagon out of them we identified the four accused persons as each one Abdul Rehman's son of Dhani Bux Korai. (2) Ghulam Akbar son of Dhani Bux Korai, (3) Manzoor Hussain son of Altaf Hussain Korai, (4) Javed son of Arz Muhammad Korai and one unknown persons who was muffled face, who suddenly took out the pistols from their folder and accused Abdul Rehman's made straight fire upon my father Anwar Ali with intention to commit murder, which hit him, after that. Accused Abdul Rehman's opened the door of wagon and instigated to other accused that do not spare Anwar Ali and commit his murder. On his instigation all accused persons made straight fires with intention to commit murder of my father and accused Abdul Rehman's also made straight fire upon my father which hit my father as we remain silent due to the fear of weapon.
3. Thereafter all accused after making firing went away towards western side on same motorcycles.
4. Thereafter I with the help of above witnesses alighted my father Anwar Ali from Wagon and saw that he sustained fire arm injuries over chest from left side one fire arm injury over right shoulder and one at left shoulder through and through one fire arm injury at neck, one fire arm at chin, one fire arm injury right side from back and fire arm injuries at other parts of body, blood was oozing from injuries and was dead, one passenger sitting back seat who also sustained injury at the hands of accused and was unconscious, later on he was known as Saeed Mohammad son of Samandar by caste Pathan we also alighted him from Wagon. Thereafter leaving the above witnesses over the dead body and injured Saeed Muhammad Pathan. Now being present at Police Station and lodge F.I.R.; that above accused persons with their common intention and object in order to withdraw the murder case duly armed with deadly weapon made straight fires upon my father Anwar and committed his murder and above accused persons have made injured to Saeed Muhammad Pathan. I am complainant and justice be done."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the F.I.R. Accused namely Abdul Rehman's, Ghulam Akbar, Manzoor Hussain, Javed (the present applicant) and unknown persons with muffled faces have been cited and as per F.I.R. It was alleged that all were having T.T. Pistols. The motive mentioned in the F.I.R. Is that co-accused Abdul Rehman's committed the murder of a person of complainant party. He further argued that the accused Abdul Rehman's is absconding in both the murder cases along with other co-accused but present applicant is cooperating with the police.
6. He further argued that no recovery was effected from the present applicant. He further submitted that no identification -parade was held. He further argued that no specific role was assigned to present applicant but the allegations are general in nature implicating the present applicant. He has further argued that applicant has been implicated in the present case as he is brother-in-law of co-accused Abdul Rehman's. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that on the date of incident i.e. 25-9-2009 the applicant was performing his duty as teacher in the school. He submitted that applicant was not present at the time of incident. Learned counsel has argued that applicant had associated with the investigation and has produced two letters one from the teachers of the School and one from the Headmaster showing that applicant was on duty from 8- 00 a.m. To 12-00 Noon. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that as per the F.I.R. The incident took place at 2-00 p.m and the place of wardat is about 25 kilometers away from the School of the applicant, hence the applicant was not present at the place of wardat. Learned counsel' has further placed reliance on the letter of Superintendent of Police Investigation Sukkur, wherein it has been stated that present applicant be released under section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that in the Provisional Medical Certificate regarding injured Saeed Muhammad Doctor has shown to have received the injured at 12-30 p.m. And after giving him treatment he has released the injured at 12-45 p.m. On 25-9-2009. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that in' the inquest report the Doctor has interpolated time of incident. He has submitted that Doctor had written originally time of incidence at 12-45 p.m.
7. But subsequently it was changed to 1545. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that Doctor has done so as perhaps incidence has taken place at 12-00 but just to implicate the present applicant time was shown as 1545. He further argued that it has been done because at 12-00 O'
8. Clock the applicant was present in the School. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited my attention to the statement under section 161 made by driver Abdul Majeed and Saeed Muhammad but no one has connected the present applicant with the commission of offence.
9. On the other hand learned A.P.-G. Has argued that applicant was rightly implicated with the commission of offence. However, he could not show any piece of evidence which connects the present applicant with the commission of offence.
10. Since it is a bail stage deeper appreciation cannot be undertaken. It is to he seen as to whether the applicant is prima facie connected with the commission of offence or not. During the course of arguments prosecution has failed to point out any piece of evidence which connects the present applicant with the commission of offence. There is discrepancy in the timings on different documents which creates doubt and makes the case of further enquiry. The applicant is entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail application was granted by a short order dated 12-7-2010 admitting the applicant to bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court and the same are the reasons for the same..