1. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that if the applicant had intention to kill the deceased, he had full opportunity to do so and he would have not given superfluous injuries, which exceed the two main injuries alleged by the Prosecution. The learned Advocate further submitted, that there was four hours delay in lodging of F. I. R. And there is an admitted business enmity between the applicant, and the injured person and as such false implication cannot be ruled out on account of alleged delay of four hours in lodging of F. I. R. The learned Advocate further submitted, that the case against the applicant even if prosecution story is believed, is on the border line of sections 307, P. P. C. And 324, P. P. C. And as such this question would require further inquiry, at the stage of trial.
2. The learned Addl. A.-G. Appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the above application, as besides the injured there are two other eye-witnesses, namely Ghulam Abbas and Riaz, who have witnessed the incident in question.
3. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the F. I. R. And 161 Cr. P. C. Statements of Prosecution witnesses. It is clear from the F. I. R., that P. W. Riaz did not convey the names of the assailants to the complainant nor the injured assigned specific role of knife injuries to the present applicant, when he narrated the incident to the complainant, which is mentioned in the F. I. R. No doubt the complainant in his further statement has specified, that the knife injuries were caused to him by the present applicant alone, Keeping in view these obvious omissions in his F. I. R. Vis-a-vis statement of the prosecution witnesses under section 161, Cr. P. C. And also keeping in view the fact, that the applicant had full opportunity to have caused fatal injuries to the injured, the way in which the incident is described, but still out of 9 injuries only one so far has been declared to be grievous and the result oft the second injury is not yet known. In view of this, whether the offence committed by the applicant would fall under section 307, P. P. C. Of under section 326 or 324, P. P. C. Would require further inquiry, at the stage of the trial.
4. It may further be noted, that applicant has been in custody right from 18th March, 1982 and not a single prosecution witness so far has been examined.
5. Therefore, in view of my above observations, I consider this is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant and consequently I allow the above, application and direct that the applicant may be released on bail, on his' furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 30,000 with the P. R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.