1. ' SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.--Applicant Harneed Kachhi is booked in Crime No,12 of 2010, registered at Police Station Tando Jam, under sections 302, 201, 109 and 147, P.P.C.
2. ' The facts as set out in the F.I.R are that Muhammad Waseem, brother of the complainant was running a business of cement tiles, whereas Hameed Kachhi (applicant) was his partner.. On 12-1- 2010 Hameed Kachhi called Muhammad Waseem, who went but till night did not return. It is further stated that on 15-1-2010, complainant along with his brother Muhammad Saleem, Faheem and cousin Muhammad Sharif was present in their house when one Shakeel who was friend of Muhammad Waseem, came in confused position and disclosed that on 12-1-2010 at some distance from village Nangar Wassan Hameed. Kachhi, Tarique alias Taroo Khoso, Afzal Mari, Bundo Mari and two unidentified persons caught hold Muhammad Waseem and Tarique caused backside hatchet to Muhammad Waseem, who fell down. Thereafter, all accused persons jointly gave kick and fist blows to Muhammad Waseem, whereas Hameed Kachhi strangulated him, as a result, Muhammad Waseem died at the spot and accused persons buried him -in a ditch. Thereafter, F.I.R.
3. Was registered and police conducted investigation.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is unexplained delay of about 3 days in lodging the F I.R. He further submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this case by the complainant, who intends to usurp the property/business of the deceased as well as applicant.
5. Learned counsel contended that co-accused Bandah Mari and Tarique alias Taroo have already been released on bail therefore following the rule of consistency, present applicant is also entitled to same relief as his case is on better footing than the case of co-accused Bandah Mari and Tarique. In support of his contention learned counsel for the applicant has relief upon the case of MUHAMMAD DAUD v. STATE (2008 SCM R 173).
6. ' On the other hand, learned A.P.G. As well as learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of bail. Learned counsel for complainant in support of his contention has relied upon the case of ZAINUDDIN v. STATE (200 YLR 714).
7. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the case-law cited at the bar.
8. From the perusal of record, it appears that the incident took place on 12-1-2010 around 1700 hours and the F.I.R. Has been lodged on 15-1-2010 around 2030 hours with a delay of 03 days, which has not been plausibly or logically explained by the complainant. It also appears that star witness of the case i,e, P.W. Shakeel, who is also said to be friend of deceased Waseem was present at the time of incident but he remained silent for about three days even his 164, Cr.P.C. Statement was recorded after 20 days of the alleged incident. The co-accused namely. Bandah Mari and Tarique alias Two have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 5-7-2011, passed in Criminal Bail Application Nos.S-451 of 2010 and 506 of 2010.
9. ' In view of above, case of the applicant is one of further enquiry. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and the applicant is granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,400,000 (Four Lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
10. ' The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not influence upon the trial Court while proceeding with the case.