1. ' MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, J.---Through the instant application, the applicants seek post arrest bail in Crime No,21/2013 of Police Station Aandal - Sundrani under sections 302, 201, 34, P. P. C .
2. ' Succinctly the facts as unfolded, in above FIR are that complainant lodged an FIR on 30-12-2013 at 1900 hours on behalf of State, for an offence which is alleged to have taken place on 25-12-2013 at 1700 hours stating therein that vide entry No,S-1000/30-12-2013 he along with his subordinate staff was on patrolling within jurisdiction, when they reached at Nang Wari they received spy information that on 25-2-2013 at about 1900 hours near his house accused Rafique son of Qaisar with K.K had committed the murder of his daughter Mst. Sehat alias Sehjal aged about 17/18 years and accused Sanaullah Sundrani with gun had committed murder of Lai Khan alias Addo Shar aged about 24/25 years on the allegation of "Karap", whereafter, accused Rafique, Sanaullah, Soobal and Khan Muhammad Ghanwar along with two unidentified persons took the dead bodies of both the deceased on bull-cart and thrown them in river for causing dis-appearance of evidence. Such information was intimated by complainant to his subordinate staff whereafter he reached at village Gahi Sundrani and enquired about the sanctity of above information and got confirmation whereof. Thereafter complainant appeared at Police Station and registered the FIR as stated above on behalf of the State,.
3. ' The applicants moved their bail application before the trial court which culminated in dismissal vide order dated 14-2-2014, therefore the applicants filed the instant bail application before this Court.
4. ' The learned counsel for the applicants has contended that there is no specific role against the applicants and the FIR has been lodged with the delay of five days which has not been explained.
5. He has further contended that there is no private complainant of the above incident nor any eye- witness of the alleged incident. Per learned counsel there is no evidence against the applicants to connect them with the commission of offence. According to him no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the possession of the applicants. Per learned counsel there was spy information received by complainant regarding commission of alleged offence but such source of information has not been disclosed by complainant in FIR. Per learned counsel there is no eye-witness cited by the prosecution who has seen the applicant throwing the dead bodies in river for purpose of causing disappearance of evidence; as such at this stage the applicants cannot be saddled with the commission of present offence. He has further argued that the case of the applicants comes within the purview of subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Calling for further enquiry in the matter.
6. In support of his contentions he has relied upon the cases reported as Sabir Baig v. The State (2012 YLR 1412), Imdad Ali and another v. The State (2012 YLR 1719), Khakoo alias Abdul Khaliq and another v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1839), Muhammad Rafique v. The State (2012 YLR 2890) and Shah Nawaz v.
7. The State (2009 YLR 2300).
8. ' Conversely learned A.P.G opposed the grant of bail while contending that the applicants are involved in the commission of serious offence and their names are mentioned in the FIR. However, the learned A.P.G concedes to the fact that there is no eye-witness of the incident and no material connecting the applicants in commission of offence has been brought by prosecution.
9. ' I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the material so made available before me.
10. ' Perusal of material makes it manifest that the present incident is an unseen one. The role attributed to applicants of throwing dead bodies of the deceased in the river for the purpose of causing disappearance of evidence as alleged by prosecution, prima facie, is not supported by any material available with the prosecution. The dead bodies of the deceased have not been so far recovered despite lapse of sufficient time on account of which the medical evidence is not available with the prosecution. The offence under section 201, P.P.C.; the applicants are charged with, in the FIR is punishable for 3 years which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The complainant though in the FIR has stated that after receiving information he went to the place of incident and enquired about the genuineness of incident. However the complainant has not cited any person from whom he enquired about the alleged fact which was confirmed by him to show nexus of applicants in the commission of offence.
11. It is settled proposition of law that at bail stage deeper appreciation into the merits of case cannot be undertaken and only a tentative assessment of the material available is to be made just to find out as to whether there are sufficient grounds available with the prosecution to establish the involvement of the accused in the commission of offence or not.
12. ' Adverting to the above proposition of law, it is noted that in the present case, prima facie, there is no direct evidence available with the prosecution against the applicants to connect them with the commission of offence which has been conceded so by the learned APG.
13. ' In view of the above discussion and while relying on the dictums laid down in the case of Khalkoo alias Abdul Khalique and another v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1839); and Sabir Baig v. The State (2012 YLR 412), I am of view that the applicants have been able to make out a case for grant of bail which is accordingly granted to them subject to their furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees One Lac) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.
14. ' Needless to say, that the above observations are tentative in nature which shall not influence the trial court while deciding the case on its merits.