' MUHAMMAD fASNIM, J. Applicant is booked in Crime No,43 of 2010, under sections 302, 201 and 34 P.P.C., Police Station Khahi. In the first place, applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Sanghar, who dismissed the bail application per order dated 22-7-2011. Thereafter, the, applicant has approached to this Court for seeking bail.
2. , Case of the prosecution, as per the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Mandhal Roonjho on 9-12-2010, is that on 7-12-2010 the complainant along with his sons after closing their hotel at evening time came to their house and after taking night meal went to sleep, on the next morning at 8-00 a.m.
When complainant saw his younger son Noor Ahmed was not present. When complainant, his other son Noor Muhammad and cousin Ghafoor proceeded to search his son and reached near the hedge of the house of Sattar Panhwar, where they heard commotion of Satter Panhwar and his brother Ammer Bux alias Babu and both collectively saying that on 7-12-2010 they had committed the murder of Noor Ahmed Roonjho through asphyxia and the dead body has been buried towards south after digging earth. After hearing such facts of the incident complainant along with his son Noor Muhammad, cousin. Ghafoor and Abdul Latif took the spade and slowly went towards the house of Sattar Panhwar where they saw that their house was vacant and found the fresh digging of earth. After digging the earth they saw and identified the dead body of his son Noor Ahmed and his neck was suffocated with shawl. Thereafter, the complainant went to police station and lodged the F.I.R.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of bail application, has submitted that alleged incident took place on 7-12-2011, but F.I.R. Was registered on 9-12-2010, after a delay of two days, which has not been explained by the prosecution. He says that incident is unseen. The present applicant has been implicated in this crime on the statement of co-accused Sattar. Learned counsel says that co-accused Sattar and Haji have already been admitted to bail by the learned trial Court, as according to prosecution, parties have compromised the matter outside the Court.
He further says that learned trial Court while rejecting the bail application of the applicant has not assigned any reason for the same. Learned counsel contends that this is a fit case, in which further enquiry is called for. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following cases: "(1) MANZOOR HUSSAIN and another v. THE STATE (2011 SCM R 902).
(2) SUHAIL ASHRAF v. THE STATE (2011 M LD 1077),
(3) ALI HASSAN v. THE STATE (2006 PCr.LJ 403).
(4) RAHIM BUX v. THE STATE (2005 YLR 1544).
(5) JAVED v. THE STATE (2011 YLR 2775).
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.-G. Has supported the order passed by the learned trial Court, however, he could not justify the delay in lodging the F.I.R. He says that co-accused Sattar and Haji have been admitted to bail on the basis of compromise arrived at between the complainant and such accused persons. He says that there is ample material available with the prosecution, which connects the applicant with the commission of alleged offence, but he could not point out any piece' of evidence available with the prosecution against the present applicant at this stage.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. From the perusal of the record, it appears that incident is unseen; dead body was not recovered on the pointation of the applicant. Admittedly, there is delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R. Which has not been explained. The applicant appears to have been implicated on the statement ofco- accused Sattar, who has already been enlarged on bail. It is a settled position that at the, bail stage deeper appreciation of 'record cannot be gone into, but only a tentative assessment is to be made just to find out as to whether the applicant/accused is prima facie, connected with the commission of the alleged offence or not. Applying the above test to the case in hand, it will be noticed that incident was unseen. There is delay of two days in lodging of the F.I.R. Co-accused Sattar has already been enlarged on bail. Dead body was not recovered on the pointation of the applicant. All the above factors make the case of the applicant of further enquiry in terms of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. According, the applicant is admitted to bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 (One Lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
This bail application stands disposed of, along with the listed applications..