1. ' This Bail Application is moved on behalf of two applicants Muhammad Hassan son of Muhammad Issa Chandio and Umedali son of Muhammad Issa Chandio.
2. The facts which are connected with the incident are given in the F.I.R. Dated 5th September, 1983 filed at 9.00 a. m. By one Muhammad Uris. Following is the translation of the F.I.R.:-- "Complaint is that I and my relations namely (1) Muhammad Moosa son of Haji Muhammad (2)
3. Haji Ali Muhammad son of Haji Muhammad (3) Mohabat son of Haji Muhammad who are my brothers-in-law (Salas). We live in our adjacent houses situated near Wehar Shari!. My abovesaid "Salas" brothers-in-law have 50 Acres of land in Deh Bhanbha which is cultivated by me and my sons. About four years ago the nephews of my brothers-in-law namely (1) Muhammad Hassan (2)
4. Umedali, (3) Muhammad Bux got changed 'Khatas' in their names by showing my brothers-in-law as dead. Then my brothers-in-law filed cases in Courts against their nephews and those cases are still pending. We have dispute with them on this account. Muhammad Hassan party used to threat from time to time their uncles Muhammad Moosa and Haji Ali that they should give up this land and should shift from there otherwise they would be finished.
5. ' Today I and my brothers-in-law Mohabat, Muhammad Moosa, Haji Ali and my nephew Muhammad Umer son of Usman started together from our houses were going to town with work of nephew Muhammad Umer and Mohabat while Haji Ali and Muhammad Moosa were going to attend Court in respect of cases arising out of land disputes.
6. ' Muhammad Moosa and Haji Ali were going on foot path about 100 yards ahead of us. I, Muhammad Umar and Mohabat were following them. When Muhammad Moosa and Haji Ali cross "Lundi Shakh" on its west then in our seeing from South direction of the foot path emerged (1)
7. Muhammad Hassan son of Issa, (2) Umedaly son of lssa, (3) Muhammad son of Murado.
8. Muhammad Hassan and Umedali had single barrel guns in their hands and Muhammad had country made pistol, Muhammad Hassan challenged and abused decease Muhammad Moosa and Haji Ali and asked them to stop as their death has come. Deceased Muhammad Moosa and Haji Ali tried t run. Accused Muhammad Hassan, Umedali and Muhammad howeve ran after them and reached them, then Muhammad Hassan, Umedal and Muhammad fired guns and pistol shots at the deceased who fell down. Then accused fired more shots and returned to "Lundi Shakh' where all three sat on motor cycles and went to southern side.
9. ' Then I, Mohabat and Muhammad Umer went there and saw tha Muhammad Moosa had received fire-arm injuries on waist, legs an neck whereas Haji Ali had received fire-arm injuries on face an other parts off the body. I then left Mohabat and Muhammad Uma to look after the dead bodies and now I lodge complaint. My complain is that accused Muhammad Hassan, Umedali and Muhammad hay killed my brothers-in-law deceased Muhammad Moosa and Haji Ali with fire-arm over a land dispute and pray action be taken in this matter."
10. ' The bail application was moved in the trial Court in the first instance which was rejected.
11. ' Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh Advocate argued the bail application the plea of alibi. It is being urged that the applicant No, 1 i,e, Muhammad Hassan is TZTerk in the S.P.'s Office, Dadu and the applicant No,2 Umedali is a constable and both of them, it is alleged, were present on duty in their respective offices. The normal police who was investigating the crime was report against and the investigation was transferred to C.I.A. Authorities. C.I.A. Made inquiries and took statements of S.I.
12. Ghulam Rabbani, Muhammad Hussain, P.C. Allah Rakhio and P.C. Mumtaz Ali on 6th October, 1983.
13. They all say that applicant Umed All was present in the Roll Call on the day of the incident at 6-00 a.m. C.I.A. Also recorded statements on the same day of the witnesses namely Muhammad Bux Chandio, Muhammad Latif Chandio, Rais Elahi Bux Baloch, Muhammad Sabir, Muhammad Ityas and Jameelur Rehman all attached to the Office of S.P., Dadu who also say the applicant Muhammad Hassan was present at 7-30 a.m. In the office.
14. ' Mr. Azizullah Shaikh argues that it is a case where further inquiry is desireable and in the meantime the applicants may be released on bail. It appears that the statements were recorded on 6th October, 1983 whereas the offence has taken place on 5th September, 1983, a month earlier of recording the statements. The F.1.R. Is lodged at 9.00 a.m. And the offence has taken place at 7.30 a.m. It transpires in the F.I.R. That the accused persons had motor-cycles and they travelled on the motor-cycles after the incident. The place of incident is hardly about 13/14 miles away from Dadu and the motor-cycle would take hardly about 20 minutes or so to reach Dadu. There is no doubt that there was enmity between the parties on the lands. The F.I.R. Is filed within a reasonable time and the names of the applicants are given in the F.I.R. In this double-murder case the statements of the witnesses are taken after one month and these witnesses are either attached with the S.P's Office where the applicant No, 1 is serving or they are attached with the Police Department where applicant No,2 is serving. Unless some evidence be recorded to pin-point and assess the evidence on alibi, till then I do not feel inclined to grant bail to the applicants.
15. ' Mr. A. A. Muhammadally, A.A.-G. Has argued that the evidence is manipulated and if at all it is presumed that the evidence is not manipulated, even then applicants could travel by their motor- cycles after the commission of the crime to be present in their respective offices.
16. ' In view of the above, the bail application is accordingly rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite in recording the evidence and complete the trial as early as possible. .