Broadly the allegations against the applicant Dad Karim are that on 9-11-1970 a fight took place between him and his employee deceased Dad Rehman, whereupon the deceased sustained injuries on the right thigh and died due to excessive bleeding. Two F. I. Rs. were filed, one by the applicant and the other by the injured deceased on the same day at the same police station. The applicant received grievous knife blow injury, an incised wound 2" x 1" deep extending underneath 2" towards right clavicle in the upward direction and according to the C. M. O., Jinnah Hospital, Karachi, who had examined the applicant, an emergency operation was done and it was found that two major arteries were cut completely along with the muscles and he was of the opinion that the injury was grievous one. The applicant was released on bail by the learned Magistrate on 29-11-1971 but his bail was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi vide his order dated 10-4-1972, on an application by Mst. Zaree, a near relation of the deceased.
2. I have heard Mr. G. M. Shah, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Murtaza Hussain, Advocate for the State. It was argued amongst others by counsel for the applicant that the applicant had received a serious injury on a vital part of his body /. e. chest which endangered his life. He could not have received this injury except on a sudden fight and that the deceased received injury on the thigh, which was not a vital part of the body and the death was due to excessive bleeding and non- availability of medical assistance in time. He contended that State has not moved the application for cancellation of bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and State being a necessary party, in other words, has accepted the earlier order of the Magistrate releasing the applicant on bail. It was next contended that in fact the applicant was first charged under section 324, P. P. C. but later on, it was stated by counsel for the applicant, that the Magistrate has framed a charge under section 304, P. P. C. which offence carries the sentence of transportation for life or 10 years' R. I. and no premeditation to commit the murder on the part of the applicant has been shown. The fight was sudden and the applicant acted in self- defence and he equally received a serious injury. A perusal of both the F. I. Rs. prima facie goes to show that there was some dispute about money matter between the applicant who is the employer and the deceased who was the employee as a truck driver and sudden altercation, took the form of a fight and caused the unfortunate death of the deceased and that is why perhaps the trial Magistrate fiamed the charge under section 304, P. P. C. after recording some evidence medical and otherwise. On the other hand counsel for the State argued that the injury sustained by the applicant is self-inflicted but no suggestion has been put to the Doctor in this regard and the record does not show any such evidence. Not only this, the applicant admittedly was sent by the Police for treatment to the hospital. In any case this question has to be decided by the learned trial Court when all the evidence is before him.
3. In the circumstances referred above, mainly prima facie absence of premeditation on the part of the applicant to commit murder and also applicant's himself sustaining grievous knife injury and that the State has not come for cancellation of the bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and that he was enlarged on bail by the Magistrate, I think it is a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 15,000 and P. R. in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate. .