1. The applicant, Makhno alongwith other accused is charged for committing murder of one Nabi Bux within the premises of Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ghotki. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that there was dispute between the complainant and accused other Siahikart. On 20-2-1985 the complainant and deceased came to attend the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ghotki, when applicant Makhno alongwith Ghulam Muhammad, Maula Bux and Ranoo came in Tanga and challenged the complainant. It is alleged that Maula Bux and Ranoo were armed with Pistols, tired at Nabi Bux and prosecution witness started running towards the southern side. The accused threatened them.
2. Accused Maula Bux again fired at Nabi Bux who fell down. The fire of accused also hit one another person who ran inside of the hotel. The applicant Makhno and accused Ghulam Muhammad gave hatchet injuries to deceased and all accused went away raising slogans. Maula Bux loged report at Police Station Ghotki at 10.00 a.m.
3. Mr. M.A. Rashid, learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that during the investigation police recorded statement of four persons namely Muhammad Anwar son of Muhammad Din, Rasool Bux, Muhammad Anwer son of Sirajdin and Imam Bux in which they stated that at the time of incident the applicant was with them. He has further argued that S.H.O. And S.D.P.O. Of the same Police Station have given opinion during the investigation that applicant is innocent. He has cited NLR 1984 Criminal Case 319 and submitted that applicant is entitled to bail.
4. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned A.A.-G. For the State, has opposed the bail application and submitted that applicant was found one of the culprits during the investigation. He has argued that as many as eight injuries by sharp-edged weapon and 3 fire-arm injuries were found on the body of the deceased Nabi Bux, which get support from the version given by the eye-witnesses.
5. This is a daylight incident within the premises of Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ghotki. The part has specifically been attributed to the applicant, and Ghulam Muhammad, that they caused hatchet injuries to deceased, and this version is fully corroborated by medical evidence. As many as four eye-witnesses including the complainant have fully implicated the applicant during the investigation. Their presence at the time of incident in Court is not disputed as they were stated to have come to attend the Court. F.I.R. Of this case was lodged within half an hour in which the names of the accused and their weapon has been mentioned. The incident as stated above, took place on 20-2-1985 and applicant was arrested on 4-3-1985. The statements of his defence witnesses were recorded on 17-3-1985 after delay of about one month. Moreover there is no documentary evidence to support the plea of alibi.
6. 1984 SCMR 128, the bail was declined on the ground that at the time of occurrence, allegation was that applicants were armed with guns and rifle and their names did appear in the F.I.R. And no definite opinion on the question on the plea of alibi was given by the Investigating Officer. In case of Ahmed and others v. State, reported in 1985 SCMR 929 the bail was refused by the Supreme Court because no clear cut finding was given about the innocence of the accused. I also like to refer the case reported in 1985 SCMR 974 where it has been held that opinion ofl6 Investigating Officer not being bona fide, the bail cannot be granted.
7. For the reason stated above, in my opinion this is not a fit case for bail, application is dismissed.