1. MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---Granted subject to all just .Exceptions.
2. Present applicant is booked in Crime No. 10 of 2003, Police Station, Chakiwara, Karachi, under sections 364, 324, 302, 34, P.P.C., dated 11-1-2003. Through this bail application, the applicant seeks bail.
2. The case of prosecution, as set out in the F.I.R. Is that complainant is resident of the house mentioned in the F.I.R and is transporter by profession. On 11-1-2003 he along with his father Faiz Muhammad son of Bilal, were sitting at his garage situated at Wali Muhammad Hassan Ali Road, Singer Lines, four policemen of Police Station Chakiwara Head Constable Khan Afsar, Head Constable Sajjad Ahmed, Constable Amanat and Constable Shaukat came while patrolling and sat, when at about 8-15 p.m. Night one Suzuki Car ABM-811 Mehran Colour White in which (1) Arfat son of Haji Lal Muhammad alias Haji Lalu, (2) his brother Arshad Pappu son of Haji Lal Muhammad alias Haji Lalu, (3) Waheed son of Peer Bux, (4) Rustam son of not known, came who had Kalashnikovs and started firing with Kalashnikovs as a result of which father of complainant was injured and they forcibly made him sit in the car and kidnapped him. This incident has also been seen by brother of complainant namely Zubair. Complainant claims against above mentioned persons of injuring and kidnapping his father.
3. In support of the bail application, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the F.I.R as many as four persons have been named and all have been allegedly shown to be armed with Kalashnikovs. Learned counsel further submitted that since last eight years, applicant is in custody and trial has not concluded till date. Learned counsel has further submitted that prior to the present bail application, another Bail Application, being No.784 of 2006 was filed before this Court and while disposing of the same, directions were issued on 8-3-2007 to the learned trial Court to decide the matter within a period of four months from the receipt of order. Learned counsel further submitted that in spite of the directions of this Court, the trial has not substantially proceeded and serious prejudice and hardship is being caused to the present applicant. He further submitted that it is the right of every individual to be dealt with in accordance with law and speedy justice is also right of citizen of Pakistan. He further submitted that prosecution has no case, whatsoever, against the present applicant. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the deposition recorded by learned trial Court of the complainant on 9-6-2004, wherein he has not named the present applicant, on the contrary he has stated that on the day of occurrence four agency personnel came to his palace, whereas in the F.I.R name of four persons including present applicant appears.
4. In the F.I.R it has been alleged that all accused persons were armed with Kalashnikovs, but in the deposition it has been stated that ore person was having pistol and rest of the three persons were armed with Kalashnikovs. Learned counsel further submitted that allegations are general in nature in the F.I.R and no specific role has been assigned to the accused person named in the F.I.R.It is not mentioned in the F.I.R that who had fired at the father of the complainant or injured him. Diary- sheets of the trial Court have been produced on record. Learned counsel for applicant submits that perusal of diary-sheets shows that not a single adjournment has been taken by the present applicant hence delay in trial is not attributable to the present applicant. Learned counsel further submitted that applicant may be admitted to bail. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Ashok v. The State (1997 SCM R 436), Muhammad Aslam v. The State (1999 SCM R 2147) and Liaquat Ali v. The State (2005 PCr.LJ 1741).
5. Conversely, learned A.P.-G. Has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and has submitted that ample material is available against the preseut applicant, which connects him with the commission of the offence. He further submitted that version in the F.I.R is fully supported by the prosecution witnesses in their statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Learned A.P.-G. Supported the order passed by learned trial Court rejecting the bail application filed by the present applicant before it.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record as also the case-law cited at the bar.
7. The perusal of the F.I.R shows that as many as four accused persons namely Arfat, Arshad Pappo, Waheed (present applicant) and Rustam have been cited having Kalashnikovs in their hand and it is alleged in the F.I.R that they started firing with their Kalashnikovs, which caused injury to the father of the complainant, whereas examination of the deposition of the complainant recorded by the trial Court on 9-6-2004 shows that complainant has not named the applicant in the deposition and even he has stated in his deposition that one person was armed with pistol and other three were armed with Kalashnikovs. The complainant went on to say in his deposition that at the time of occurrence of incident the persons came at their palace and made firing were agency personnel, but he has not named any person.
8. It is settled law that deeper appreciation of the evidence at the bail stage cannot be gone into, but only tentative assessm ent is to be made just to find out as to whether applicant/accused is connected with commission of offence or not. Keeping in view the settled legal position, a tentative assessm ent of record shows that version in the F.1.R and the statement of the complainant in Court are not in line with each other and the discrepancies in his deposition and the F.I.R have been pointed out in B the earlier part of this order, which creates doubt in the case of the prosecution calling for further enquiry in the matter as required in terms of subsection (2) of the section 497, Cr.P.C.
9. On the other hand, the perusal of the order dated 8-3-2007 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.784 of 2006 shows that four months' time was allowed to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial, but till date only complainant has been examined prior to the arrest of co-accused and after the arrest of other co-accused the charge was C amended by the Court on 23-7-2007. The examination of the diary-sheets filed along with bail application clearly demonstrates that delay in trial is not attributable to the present applicant. This is a case of serious hardship as about eight years have passed and trial has not yet been concluded. On this ground as well the present applicant is entitled to bail.
10. For the foregoing reasons applicant/accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Two lacs) and P.R ID bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.