1. ' The applicants have been charged with offence under section 302, P. P. C. For having committed murder of one Rasool Mix. Their bail application was rejected by the trial Court namely, Sessions Judge, Khairpur, hence they have moved this Court under section 497/498, Cr. P. C.
2. ' The br;ef facts of the case are that on 17th August, 1981, S. H.
0. Gambat, received telephone call that a dead body was lying in Abul Canal at Daraz Regulator.
3. On this information Mr. Ghulam Mohiuddin A. S. I. P. Went to the Regulator and took out the dead body from the canal. After the post-mortem examination the dead body was handed over to one Muhammad Paryal for burial. But before this, photograph of the dead body was taken and F. I. R.
4. Was also recorded under section 302, P. P. C.
5. ' On 19th August, 1981 i. e. After two days of the recovery of the dead body, Ghulam Shabbir, Ghulam Sarwar, Muhammad Amin, Allahditto, Imamdin and others appeared at Gambat Police Station and identified the photo of the dead body to be of deceased Rasool Bux son of Jumo Ujjan. P. Ws.
6. Muhammad Amin, Rahim Bux and Ghulam are alleged to have seen Rasool Bux deceased in the company of applicant/accused Habib Bux two days before the recovery of dead body. It is also alleged that before this incident deceased Rasool Bux had committed murder of the son of applican accused Jado.
7. ' The reason for registering the case under section 302, P. P. C. In respect the deceased Rasool Bux appears to be the report of the Medical Officer who had held autopsy on the dead body and found 3 incised wounds on the neck, skull and shoulder of the deceased. During the investigation some of the applicants are alleged to have pointed out the place where certain blood-stains were found and some articles belonging to the deceased were recovered. It is also held that some of the applicants had made extra-judicial confession.
8. It would appear that there is only circumstantial evidence against the accused that one of them i. e. Hadi Bux, was last seen with the deceased, that some of them bad pointed out the place where blood-stains were noted and that some of them had also led to the recoveries of the articles belonging to the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant had relied upon certain cases in which the accused in similar circumstances were found entitled to bail. In Pino v. State it has been held that the accused and his companions pointed out place from where dead body was found and that the only evidence against them being of having been last seen with the deceased, the case was one of farther inquiry. In Muhammad Ali and others v. State it was held that recovery of revolver on pointation of main accused only would bring the case of the accused within the scope of further inquiry as contemplated by section 497(2), Cr. P. C.
9. There is no direct evidence against the applicants in the present case. The provisions of section 497(2), Cr. P. C. Would. Therefore be attracted and further inquiry would be necessary to connect the applicants with the crime. The bail application is, therefore, allowed. They shall be released on furnishing sureties in the amount of Rs, 10,000 and P. R. In like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 1981 P Cr. L J 1007 1981 P Cr. L J 1210