1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---The applicant has been sent up to stand trial under section 302/34, P.P.C. Succinctly acts given in F.I.R are that applicant Nadim Asif is friend of complainant Syed Mehmoodul Hassan and deceased Zain-ulHassan was son of complainant. From 3/4 months prior to death Zain-ul-Hassan was working with Nadeem Asif and he was paid. On the date of incident i,e, 10-5-2012 Nadeem Asif phoned Zain-ul-Hassan, and Zain-ul-Hassan took away his father's Car No,AB-8521, wherefrom they went at the Factory of complainant situated at Liaquatabad Dakkhana. After completing their work they boarded on the same Car along with one Shera who was the driver of complainant. Car was driven by deceased Zain-ul-Hassan, applicant sat on front seat while driver Shera sat on back seat. On the way some unknown persons made firing to which Zain-ul-Hassan was injured and later on died. While Nadeem Asif (applicant) and driver were secure. Thereafter dead body was brought at hospital. Complainant asked from Nadeem Asif (applicant) but he did not give any satisfactory reply, therefore, he was of the view that Nadeem Asif has got his son murdered.
2. ' Bail application was moved before learned trial Court but the same was declined vide order dated 24-9-2012. Thereafter the applicants/accused has filed this bail application.
3. ' Learned counsel submits that applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that first evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant/ accused is the confession of the co-accused before the police, recorded on the day of his arrest as per memo of arrest dated 12-5-2012 and such confession is inadmissible under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. That further on 14-5-2012 statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., of witnesses namely Muhammad Waqar and Muhammad Jamal was recorded wherein these witnesses disclosed that they saw the incident on 11-5-2012 and can identify the accused persons.
4. He submits that in statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Witnesses stated that on reading in newspaper about the incident, they came at police station and recorded their statements on 14-5- 2012 whereas these witnesses are present at the time of post mortem which was conducted on 11- 5-2012 and identified the dead body, therefore, these witnesses are not trustworthy. He lastly submits that applicant/accused is heart patient, therefore, concession of bail may be granted to applicant/accused. In support of his, arguments he placed reliance on the case-law reported as Muhammad Ali and another v. The State (1981 PCr.LJ 1210), Khan Muhammad v. The State (1983 PCr.LJ 2190), Ijaz Ahmed and another v. The State (1997 SCM R 1279), Rafique alias Rafique Ahmed v.
5. The State (PLD 2002 Karachi 317), Ali Muhammad v. The State (2005 YLR 3357), Muhammad Riaz v.
6. State (1996 PCr.LJ 150), Anwar Zeb v. Muhammad Riaz and another (2009 PCr.LJ 1985), Zareen Shah v. The State and others (2005 PCr.LJ 739).
7. ' On the other hand learned A.P.-G. Opposes the grant of bail and submits that the name of applicant/accused is mentioned in the F.I.R. He further submits that applicant/accused produced the Car used in the commission of offence before police and the seats of Car were having blood of deceased. Medical evidence supports the ocular evidence. He further submits that co-accused Sher Ali has confessed that he committed murder of deceased Zain-ulHassan at the instigation of present applicant/accused.
8. ' I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/accused, A.P.-G. And perused the record available.
9. Admittedly a 22 years young boy has been murdered in this incident and the applicant /accused is specifically named in the F.I.R. Furthermore co-accused Sher Ali has confessed his guilt and stated that he has committed murder of deceased Zain-ulHassan at the instigation of applicant/ accused. Medical version supports the prosecution case. Car used in the commission of offence has been produced by the applicant/accused before police. Sufficient evidence is available to connect the applicant/accused in the commission of offence. Therefore, I am of the view that applicant/accused has not been able to make out a case for bail, which is hereby dismissed. The facts and circumstances of case-laws referred above by learned counsel for applicant/accused are distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The trial Court is directed to examine at least four P.Ws. i,e, Complainant, two eye-witnesses and Doctor within three months.
10. Thereafter applicant, is at liberty to file fresh bail application if, so advised.