1. IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.---Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Awan A.P.-G.
2. The facts of the prosecution case in nutshell are that A.S.-I. Rao Muhammad Jawaid lodged F.I.R. on 15-3-2010 at Police Station KIA, Korangi, stating therein that as per Report No,33 of Roznamcha he arrived at JPMC in connection with the identification of corpus of one Shahzad son of Yaqoob aged about 35 years and as per Postmortem report the reason of the death as observed by MLO JPMC was due to fatal injury of receiving hard and blunt substance and as there was no any legal heirs of the deceased as such the body of the deceased was kept as Amanat in the cold storage of Edhi Centre Sohrab Goth, Karachi and subsequently he arrived at Qayyumabad Police Chowki and through A.S.-I. Qazi Salahuddin came to know that deceased Shahzad was living in H.No,113, Street No,6, D-Area, Karachi along with his wife and his wife had gone to her native place and the deceased was married by abducting her and the brother of his wife was also murdered by him and it is further averred that brother-in-law of deceased namely Meeral son of Ghulam and his cousin Sadiq son of Jamil were also residing in the same building in a rented house and both were missing from their residence after occurrence of incident. It is further averred that there was apprehension of murder which was disclosed by deceased and he used to say that due to revenge his life will be not safe and it is from the circumstances clear that the deceased Shahzad was murdered by Meeral and his brother due to revenge by way of hard and blunt substance.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that there is no eye-witness of the incident. The applicant has been involved in the case due to enmity as disclosed in the F.I.R. It is further contended that according to prosecution case applicant was arrested on the same day but no recovery was effected from him. It is further contended that applicant has been implicated due to suspicion as deceased had abducted his wife who is sister of the applicant and also had committed murder of brother of the applicant and in such circumstances the applicant has been involved falsely.
4. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Iqbal A.P.-G. contended that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, but he conceded that there is no ocular evidence against the applicant to connect him with the commission of crime as crime is un witnessed one.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced at the bar and also have gone through the police papers. Admittedly the name of the applicant does not appear in the F.I.R. and there is no evidence available with the prosecution to connect the applicant with the commission of offence. Enmity between the parties is admitted in the F.I.R.
6. In the above circumstances, the case of the applicant falls under the purview of further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Consequently the applicant was granted bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees One Lac only) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. These are the reasons for the short order passed on 14-3-2011.