1. Besides the two applicants there are two other co-accused namely, Muhammad Ratan and Muhammad Hussain who too were mentioned in the F.I. R. And the case sent up before the Court is only against the two applicants as the aforesaid two co-accused were not sent up by the police on the plea of alibi. It is apparent from a perusal of the police Statement that the ocular evidence was against all the four persons whose names were mentioned in the F. I. R. As accused persons.
2. It is also admitted fact that three of the alleged eye-witnesses namely, Allah Bux, Muhammad Ramzan and Ghulam Ali had sworn affidavits to the effect that they had not actually seen the accused persons committing the crime. At this stage considering the plea of bail, the aforesaid affidavits have to be taken into consideration as material to be assessed and it is obvious that the three eye-witnesses not supporting the prosecution case would affect it. The learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Allah Bux v. Nazar Hussain Shah and another to the effect that affidavits filed by alleged eye-witnesses exculpating respondent from commission of crime could be considered as the necessary material which had to be examined in reaching the conclusion whether the accused could be said to have been connected with the offence. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jaffer and others v. State , in which as in the instant case there was no detailed evidence as to which of the accused had caused fatal injury which resulted in the death of the deceased and it was considered to be a case for further enquiry and bail was allowed. In the instant case due to two of the three injuries caused and according to the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses four persons were responsible for causing the same. None of the injuries were particularly ascribed to any of the four.1 2 The learned Sessions Judge, Khairpur rejected the bail application on the ground that one of the eye-witnesses namely Nihal had fully supported the prosecution. The two aspects of the matter discussed above however, could be considered at this stage in determining the plea for bail.
3. In view of the circumstances stated above, the case against the two applicants is considered as one for further enquiry and, therefore, they are hereby released on bail on furnishing one surety each in the sum of Rs, 25,000 and P. R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 1979 SCM R 137 1980 SCMR 784