' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J. Applicant Bakhit Nawab is booked in Crime No.467 of 2010, registered under section 302, P.P.C. At Police Station * Jackson. The applicant initially applied for bail before IV- Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-West, who dismissed the bail application per order dated 10-11- 2010 for the reasons mentioned therein. Against the aforesaid order present bail application has been filed.
2. The case of prosecution as set out in the F.I.R. Is that a written complaint was filed by complainant Haroon Zaib through TPO on 14-5-2010 wherein he stated that his brother Ameer Zaib who was a labourer and aged about 24 years his dead-body was recovered on 16-10-2009 while their mother was admitted in Cancer Ward of Ziauddin Hospital, Nazimabad, Karachi. It is stated that complainant was in the native village for burial of his mother the complainant came back to Karachi. It is claimed that fifteen to twenty days earlier of the murder of the complainant's brother he had informed the complainant that applicant, had threatened him for killing him if he marries to a lady to whom complainant's brother wanted to marry, therefore present F.I.R. Was lodged.
3. In support of this bail application the learned counsel for applicant has submitted that there is no eye-witness in the matter. There is delay of about seven months, in lodging of F.I.R. Which has not been explained by the prosecution. He further says that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the applicant. He says that none of the prosecution witnesses has said a word against the present applicant but applicant is behind the bars since more than fourteen months.
Learned counsel says that, appliciant be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned D.P.-G. Has formally opposed the grant of bail as applicant is booked in a murder case. I.O. Present in Court says that complainant after lodging the F.I.R. Had gone to Saudi Arabia and his statement has not been recorded by the police.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
6. Since the incident is unseen there is no material available on record which connects the present applicant with the commission of offence. No recovery whatsoever has been effected from the applicant. There is inordinate delay in lodging of F.I.R. Which as not been explained. Even the statement of complainant has not been recorded due to his absence. Except the allegation in the FM that present applicant has threatened the brother of complainant about fifteen to twenty days earlier that he will be killed but there is no material available with the prosecution to substantiate such allegation in the F.I.R. In the circumstances this case requires further enquiry in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the applicant is admitted to bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
7. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and learned trial Court shall decide the main case on the material available and in accordance with law.