1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---The applicant seeks post-arrest bail in case Crime No,159 of 2012 registered at Police Station Darakhshan, Karachi under section 302, P.P.C.
2. ' According to the prosecution case, the complainant lodged stating therein that she is a housewife and his husband is the Chief of Dawn Newspaper's Magazine. On 18-4-2012 at about 2200 hours while leaving the house he told the complainant that he was going to meet Shahid Rasam at his house. After his departure she slept and on 19-4-2012 at about 0100 hours she woke up and did not find her husband. She dropped her son at school and again slept. When again she woke up at about 1100 hours she did not find her husband at home, therefore, she dialed his Cell Number but the same was switched off. Then she got cell number of Shahid Rasam and made calls to him but he did not pick the phone. She sent message whereupon he made call to her. She asked him about whereabouts of her husband whereupon he replied that Murtaza Rizvi left his studio for home at about 0030 hours and she told him that her husband had not come back. Then Shahid told that he is going to see him in studio. After few minutes he asked about his car number which was told by the complainant whereupon he told that the car is parked there and the door of studio is locked from outside. The complaint asked him to get the door opened. At about 1400 Shahid told her that he had got opened the door of the studio and advised the complainant to come there. She along with her driver rushed up to the building at 5-C 2nd floor, SAM Studio, Khadda Market where she saw the dead body of her husband lying naked. His neck was strangled by forcibly tightening his neck, arms were tied with the Qameez, and blood gelled on his nose and he was dead.
3. ' Bail application moved before the trial court was dismissed vide order dated 31-5-2012, hence this bail application.
4. ' It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case; that there is inordinate delay of 14 hours in lodging the F.I.R. He further contended that F.I.R. Was lodged against anonymous accused persons without disclosing any motive for murder, therefore identification parade must have been held but no identification parade was held; that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the applicant. According to him, this is a case of no evidence, the only evidence is that Shahid had seen him with two boys but no identification test has been held to identify the culprit. He prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.
5. ' Learned A.P.-G. Opposed the grant of bail to the applicant contending that the applicant is co- companion of absconding accused Kashif and Chanda who both were messieurs and their services ;were hired by the deceased for kneading. He further contended that Shahid had last seen the deceased with the said two messieurs. He contended that the applicant belongs to same profession and after his arrest he led the police to the place of occurrence. He prayed for dismissal of bail application.
6. ' I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material, available on record.
7. It appears that there is no eye-witness of the incident. The only evidence is that of Shahid who had last seen the deceased with two boys who were messieurs and their services were hired by the deceased for kneading. However, he did not state that the present applicant was also their companion or ever he had seen the applicant along with aforesaid two boys. Furthermore, when the allegations are against unknown persons, it was necessary that identification test must have been held but in the present case no identification test was held. The learned trial Judge in the impugned order has observed that that P.W. Shahid in his statement stated that he can conveniently identify the two messieurs whose services were hired by the deceased for kneading but very surprisingly no identification parade was held, thereby making the case doubtful and calling for further enquiry. In the circumstances, the applicant cannot be deprived of the concession of bail at this stage.
8. ' In view of above, applicant is granted bail on his furnishing in solvent surety in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 (Rupees Three Lacs only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.