1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--- F.I.R. No, 572 of 2009 was recorded at P. S. Mominabad on 14-12-2009 at 2230 hours for an incident alleged to have taken on the same day at 6-00 p.m. Complainant stated that he was working as driver at a bungalow. On the material day at about 6-00 p.m. His mother informed him on telephone that brother of the complainant has died because of firing by the present applicant during a quarrel and body of his brother had been taken to hospital. After due formalities F.I.R. Was registered.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been acquitted in Arms Ordinance case. He further submitted that in the F.I.R. There is no statement that there was any eye-witness of the incident. Learned counsel read from evidence of the complainant and submitted that statements of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. Had been recorded while they were sitting together. She further submitted that it is an improvement because in the F.I.R. No name of any witness has been mentioned.
3. ' Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that only one person has been accused of crime and the witnesses have fully supported statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. As well as in the evidence in Court. Learned counsel relied upon Shah Muhammad v. The State and another, 1999 PCr.LJ 1105, Zahid Shah v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 134, Mst. Parveen Akhtar v. The State and others 2002 SCM R 1886 and Haji Gulu Khan v. Gul Daraz Khan and another, 1995 SCM R 1765.
4. ' Learned A.P.-G. Also opposed the grant of bail and submitted that F.I.R. Has been registered promptly. He read from the statement of Mst. Ghulam Fatima and submitted that she has fully implicated the present applicant.
5. ' Exercising her right of reply learned counsel for the applicant submitted that mother of the complainant has not been cited as witness` in the challan. Therefore any statement by her under section 161, Cr.P.C. Cannot be of any consequence.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have gone through the record. In the F.I.R. All what is stated is that the mother of the complainant had informed him that his son had been murdered by the present applicant and body of the deceased had been taken to a hospital. Statement regarding presence of any person was made. Learned A.P.-G. Read from 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Mst. Ghulam Fatima in which she stated that his son went out and then she heard report of a fire on which father and two relatives present in the house rushed and saw that the present applicant was holding two pistols in his hands. ,Incident took place outside the door as has been contended in statement of Mst. Ghulam Fatima. Three male inmates, who Mst. Ghulam Fatima subsequently stated in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C, were not mentioned in the F.I.R. No person from the locality is cited as witness.
7. ' Learned counsel for the complainant referred to Shah Muhammad's case (Supra). In the reported case the complainant had been injured and his cousin had been murdered and allegation against the petitioner was that he had brought the co-accused on tractor to the place of occurrence and raised lalkara. A Division Bench of Lahore High Court declined bail. This case is distinguishable because names of witnesses were in the F.I.R. Whereas in the present case names of the witnesses were not mentioned in the F.I.R. In Zahid Shah's case again the complainant was witness of the incident and Dames of the witnesses were also mentioned in F.I.R. In Mst. Parveen Akhtar's case the facts as alleged in the F.I.R. Were that a police party apprehended an accused namely Amir and when he was being taken to Police Station, brother of Amir and his sister attacked upon the police party, in order to rescue their brother killing a police constable in the process. Since bail had been granted to brother of Amir an application for cancellation of bail was filed. Since a Police Constable was killed widow filed application for cancellation of bail. The facts are therefore clearly distinguishable. Haji Gulu Khan's case also relates to cancellation of bail.
8. ' Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there is no enmity and therefore there was no reason for the complainant to lodge a false F.I.R. However, when the learned A.P.-G. Read statement of Mst. Ghulam Fatima she stated in her statement that the present applicant had rented a shop from the complainant party from which he was evicted about six years ago and for that he carried grudge and had opened a shop next door. Therefore previous acquaintance and bad blood cannot be completely denied.
9. Primarily for the reason that the names of three males, who were subsequently stated to be present in the house, were not stated in the F.I.R. And no reason has been brought as to why these names were not disclosed in the first place. This creates a doubt about the veracity of the statement of the witnesses and it is settled law that benefit of any doubt even at bail stage should be given to a person being tried. Consequently, this application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be admitted to bail upon his executing P.R. In the sum of Rs,300,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.