1. ' This application under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. Is at the instance of Khawar and Malhar who are facing trial for offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. In the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur.
2. ' As per F.I.R lodged at the Police Station Rustom by Mst. Pathani on 1-61986 at about 9-00 p.m. The applicants were jointly shown as culprits for having caused the death of her husband, Mohammad Murad, by giving hatchet blows, Later on she also filed a direct complaint in Court of Civil Judge and F.C.M., Shikarpur under section 200, Cr.P.C. In respect of this very offence alleging, inter alia, therein that the F.I.R., lodged by her was not read over to her and that her thumb-impression had been taken on a blank paper. In this direct complaint besides the applicants above-named, the complainant Pathani also disclosed the names of two more accused persons, namely, Sohrab and Shafan both sose of Shahnwaz. The said two alleged co-accused on the basis of the direct complaint have been allowed bail by the learned trial Court whereas the bail application of the applicants has been dismissed.
3. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Mohammad Hanif Mangi, as well as Mr. Amanullah Qureshi for the State. The learned counsel for the applicants vehemently urged that there are two different versions given by the complainant in the instant case one as per F.I.R only the applicants have been shown as accused and the other as per Direct Complaint wherein four accused persons have been shown as accused for the offences in question. It has, therefore, the learned counsel so urged, made the prosecution case doubtful.
4. ' He also pressed the application on the grounds that the motive alleged in the F.I.R. Was that the deceased was declared Karo with Mst. Waziran while in the direcit complaint it is mentioned to be the theft of a bullock of accused party by Mohammad Murad, the deceased. In the direct complaint it has been mentioned that all the four accused were armed with hatchets who had given blows to the deceased on the various parts of the body. Moreover, the counsel so contended, that the complainant herself has stated in her direct complaint that the police officer of Rustom Police Station had obtained only her thumb-impression on a blank paper and as such the contents of the F.I.R were not recorded at the instance of the complainant. This has, according to him rendered the F.I.R false and it could, therefore, be not used as a corroborative piece of evidence against the applicants. In his submission, it was yet to be determined as to who was responsible for the fatal blows which resulted in causing the death of the deceased Mohammad Murad. In support of his contention the learned counsel referred to the following reported cases.
5. ' 1980 SCM R 784, 1986 SCM R 1380, 1987 PCrLJ 632.
6. ' The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the bail application. He emphasised that the cases commenced through direct complaint could not be amalgamated with police case and hence both the cases will proceed on their own merits. Even if the case on direct complaint fails, the State case would be taken up later on. He also urged that the medical evidence and the recovery of blood-stained hatchets from the possession of the applicants coupled with the motive as disclosed in the F.I.R were sufficient to hold that the applicants have no case for grant of bail.
7. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties before me. It is evident from the facts narrated above that the applicants have been implicated, both the F.I.R. As well as the direct complaint, as accused persons. They are alleged to have given hatchet blows to the deceased both in the F.I.R as well as in direct complaint. The mere facty that in the subsequent direct complaint two more ace d have been implicated would not come to the help or in any manner advance the case of the applicants for the grant of bail. The learned trial Court hints considered the cases of those two newly implicated accused persons, and allowed them bail. The medical evidence shows that the deceased was caused hatch plows. The blood-stained hatchets have been allegedly recovered from the possession o the applicants above named.
8. ' In this view of the matter, it is difficult to hold that the applicants have succeeded in making out a case for grant of bail. In so far as the first above-mentioned case is concerned, it may be stated that in the case it was held that the record of the case did not disclosed as to which of the accused caused fatal injury and hence there existed a room for consideration regarding common intention of other accused to kill the deceased and hence it was a case of further enquiry. Moreover, it was a case of counter versions.
9. ' The second above noted case has no relevancy to the facts of the case in hand inasmuch as in that case the case of the petitioner before the Supreme Court was found to be non-distinguishable from the others to whom bail had been granted. The above referred cases at serial No,3 has also no relevancy to the facts of the case in hand.
10. ' For the foregoing reasons I hold that this application had no merits and it is accordingly rejected.
11. Bail declied.