1. ' The applicant Allah Bachayo and co-accused Muhammad Bux who has been admitted to bail, are facing trial for the murder of Esso. As disclosed in the F.I.R. The deceased Esso was in toe with Mst. Saran wife of the applicant Allah Bachayo. It is alleged that on the night of the incident at about mid-night the deceased was surprised by the applicant and the co-accused while he was engaged in illicit intercourse with Mst. Saran. It is said the applicant Allah Bachayo caused injury to the deceased with 'Khaho' whereas the co-accused gave him Lathi blow. According to medical opinion the injury attributed to the applicant proved fatal. Accordingly the case of the co-accused was distinguished and he was granted bail.
2. It seems the F.I.R. Has been delayed for more than 16 hours and according to learned counsel for the applicant the explanation given for the delay is far from satisfactory. He further pointed out that the dead body of the deceased was admittedly found in the house of the applicant Allah Bachayo.
3. According to him it is also prosecution's own case that the accused Allah Bachayo told the witnesses who came on cries that he saw the deceased in objectionable position with his wife. The learned counsel therefore argued that in such circumstances the accused was entitled to bail. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on two Supreme Court authorities: namely, Rehana etc. v. The State 1984 SCMR 1557 and Muhammad Sadiq v. Muhammad Rafiq and others 1982 SCMR 301. In the first case of Rehana it was held: "We have heard Mr. Pervaiz Akhtar, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State. The fact that the deceased had an affair with Mst. Fateh Mai, wife of appellant No, 1 is admitted, as also the fact that the deceased had earlier eloped with Mst. Fateh Mai. Then there is the all important fact that the body of the deceased was found in the house of the appellants and the report of his death was not recorded until 7-00 p.m. These important aspects of the case were overlooked by the High Court while refusing bail to the appellants."
4. ' In the second case of Mohammad Sadiq, it was observed:- "The question of bail was in the discretion of the High Court and as pointed out by the learned Judge, the petitioner's case in the F.I.R. Was that his nephew was carrying on with the first respondent's wife. Secondly, according to the F.I.R. The occurrence took place in the house of the respondents in the early hours of the morning. Therefore, in the circumstances, no case has. Been made out for interfering with the exercise of discretion by the High Court in favour of the respondents. Mr. Salim's real apprehension, however, was that the observations, in the impugned order might affect the case of the respondents in the Sessions Court, therefore, we would clarify that observations in a bail order are necessarily of a tentative nature and the case against the respondents will be decided by the Sessions Court on the basis of the evidence of motive before it.
5. With these observations the petition is dismissed."
6. In view of the above authorities the learned A.A.-G. Has no objection to grant of bail to the applicant. I am of the view that the principle laid down in the aforesaid authorities also governs the present case and as such the applicant is entitled to bail. Accordingly bail is allowed to the applicant in the sum of Rs,20,000 and P.R. Of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.