1. ' F.I.R. Was lodged at P.S.Tando, Allahyar by one Noor Muhammad on 19-10-1982 at 08.15 hours, about the incident which took place allegedly on 19-10-1982, at 0400 hours,wherein it was stated that on 18-10-1982, during night after taking meals, the above-named complainant, Abdul Razzak, Nasir, Abdul Sattar and Gul Muhammad went to sleep and at about 4 a.m. Cries of Nasir and Abdul Razzaque were heard on which they got up and saw Chhuto, Umid Ali and Khairo Mirbahar armed with Lathis telling Nasir that they had asked him not to come with his cattle to the channel where their woman used to go for washing clothes and saying so within their sight gave Lathi blows to Nasir and Abdul Razzak on their heads and other parts of their bodies. The complainant and other persons with him, named above, gave 'Hakals not to kill whereupon the said assailants ran away.
2. Nasir and Abdul Razzak, according to the version in the F.I.R., received injuries on their heads and other parts of their bodies and the bones of the head of Abdul Razzak were fractured. The case was originally registered under sections 325 and 323, P.P.C. Since Abdul Razzak died on 20th November, 1982, due to injuries sustained by him, section 302, P.P.C. Was also applied.
2. According to the learned counsel for the applicant in the statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. The alleged eye-witnesses (Gul Muhammad and Abdul Sattar, cousin and brother of the deceased Abdul Razzak) supported the version as per F.I.R. Implicating the accused named therein as the assailants responsible for the murder of Abdul Razzak. On 21st October, 1982, post-mortem report was received which disclosed that the injuries caused to Abdul Razzak (deceased) were by sharp cutting weapons.
3. ' The learned counsel submitted that after the receipt of post-mortem report, in order to improve upon the case disclosed in the F.I.R. And to bring it in conformity with the said post-mortem report for the first time after lapse of 5 days of the incident., in the statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Nasir, boy aged about 12 years was made to set up an altogether different version, according to which the present applicant Shahbaz Gul alongwith two other unidentified persons was attempted to be implicated. According to the learned counsel, in an attempt to improve the case it, was alleged that these persons armed with knives threw him (Nasir) on the ground from the cot, and applicant (Shahbaz Gul) pressed the throat of Abdul Razzak and the other two (unidentified) persons caught hold of Abdul Razzak from his body and applicant (Shahbaz Gul )" gave knife blow on the head of Abdul Razzak who receiving such knife blow became unconscious and that after this one of the three accused gave blow on his (Nasir's) head. Having stated so Nasir in his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Further stated that after this all the three accused threw him (Nasir) in cultivation where he remained lying unconscious and was taken away in the morning by the labourers. Statement of Abdul Sattar, Gul Muhammad, Mehar Din were also recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. In which the version given in the F.I.R. Was given a go by and instead Chhuto, Umid Ali and Khairo Mirbehar named in F.I.R. As the persons who caused injuries to Abdul Razzak and Nasir with Lathis for the alleged reason that Nasir used to take cattle at the channel where womenfolk of those persons used to go for washing clothes and that in spite of the warning he had not desisted from doing so, different persons were tried to be implicated. A new motive was also set up by Mehar Din (the father of the deceased Adul Razzak), who alleged that accused Shahbaz Gul murdered Abdul Razzak as there was dispute between him (Mehar Din) and Shahbaz Gul on 'house property'.
4. ' The learned counsel relied upon cases reported in 1975 P Cr. L J 1017; 1980 P Cr. L J 409 and 1982 SCM R 955 and contended that it was a fit case in which the applicant Gul Muhammad, who according to the learned counsel was falsely implicated subsequent to the receipt of the post- mortem report in statement recorded under section 1611, Cr.P.C. After five days of the alleged incident, is entitled to be admitted to bail.
5. ' I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and find that the plea of bail in the circumstances of the case is liable to succeed in view of the principle laid down in the case of Amjad v. State 1982 SCM R 955 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan,while accepting petition for leave to appeal and directing release of the petitioner on bail, observed as follows:- "The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no sanctity can be attached to the version given in the F.I.R. In view of the fact that it has been found to be false with regard to the majority of the accused. He submitted further that the petitioners have only been attributed one injury each on the leg of the deceased.
6. ' We issued a notice to the State and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We do not propose to discuss the merits of the case but feel that in the circumstances of this case the two petitioners are entitled to grant of bail. We, therefore, convert the petition into appeal and allow the same."
7. ' The case of Kaloo and two others v. The State 1980 P Cr. L J 409 may also be referred wherein on the facts of the case that in the F.I.R. Names of different persons with a different motive were given while the alleged eye-witnesses involved the applicants in the murder with a different motive, the learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the application and directed the applicants in that case to be released on bail in view of great difference between the two versions.
8. ' Mr. A.A. Muhammad Ally, Asstt. A.-G. In view of the circumstances of the case referi-ed to above and pointing out that the three persons named in the F.I.R. Were arrested on 20th October, 1982 by the police but were later on let off on 23rd October, 1982, did not oppose the bail application of the present petitioners.
3. I have considered the above arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Asstt. A.-G. And find that in view of the totally different versions given in the F.I.R. And the statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. Whereby different persons had been implicated and even the nature of weapons used as well as the motive set up had been changed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. It is a case of further inquiry.
9. ' Accordingly the applicant is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs,25,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.