1. MUHAMMAD ISMAIL BHUTTO, J.---This incident took place on 27-8-2005 at about 0215 hours and F.I.R. Was lodged on the same date at 2015 hours by the complainant.
2. Learned counsel submits that no name has been transpired in the F.I.R., nor any description has been mentioned nor any identification test has been held. Furthermore he submits that the further statement of the complainant was recorded on 2-9-2005 with delay of 7 days and also P.Ws. Were examined under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 2-9-2005 with delay of 7 days, he came to know. According to further statement and statements of P.Ws. For two unidentified persons he came to know they were namely Abdul Rehman alias Rehmoon and Gulab but no source of knowledge has been given by the complainant and the P.Ws. And F.I.R. Was also lodged with delay of 18 hours with the consultation of the witnesses. Furthermore he submits that post mortem was conducted and then the F.I.R. Was lodged due to instruction of Nek maid Muhammad Idrees. Learned counsel furthermore submits that the accused is languishing in the jail since 3-10-2003 without any proceedings of the trial. Furthermore submits that specific allegation of fire at the son of the complainant against the accused Sattar and Hakeem and in view of above submissions case of applicant requires further inquiry and he is entitled for grant of bail.
3. Learned AAG appearing on behalf of State submits that the complainant has not given source of knowledge for the involvement of the present applicant in the crime and in the further statement so also by the P.Ws. In their 161, Cr.P.C. Statements, there is no plausible explanation regarding the delay of 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the P.Ws. And of further statement of the complainant and he conceded for grant of bail.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant so also learned AAG for the State and gone through the material available on record. It is admitted fact that according to F.I.R. Four persons, two were namely Sattar and Hakeem both sons of Dodo and two unidentified had entered in the house of the complainant after making aperture in the wall and had fired by the Sattar and Hakeem. So far according to section 460, P.P.C. A all accused are conjointly responsible for the offence but since no name and description were given in the F.I.R. So also no source had been mentioned by the complainant party in the further statement and 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the P.Ws. Regarding involvement of present applicant in the crime. Furthermore he is behind the bars for about four years without any trial, early trial is the right of the accused and no one can be put behind the bars for indefinite period as a punishment.
5. In view of the above, I am of considered view that applicant is entitled for grant of bail; he is granted bail in the sum of Rs. 400,000 and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. Bail application is disposed of.