1. ' Applicant Shahid Hussain is facing trial in the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, for an offence punishable under section 302/34, P.P.C. The case against him has arisen from F.I.R. No, 155/86 lodged with Preedy Police by Haji Fayaz son of Kallan on 21-6-1986. He stated that he was informed at his shop by one Majid that his son (Mukhtar Ahmed) was lying injured in (Gawali) land. He further stated that he went to the lane and found his son Mukhtar Ahmed writhing on the footpath while having Chhuri injury on his left side chest. He alleged that his son Mukhtar Ahmed told him that Shahid had struck him with a Chhuri and Meraj son of Muhammad Din was with him. The victim Mukhtar Ahmed was removed to Civil Hospital where he succumbed to the injury sustained by him. This report was made to Muhammad Yasin, A.S.I.P. Preedy Police Station who forwarded it to the police station for registration of the crime and it was registered in 154, Cr.P.C. At 11-00 p.m. Police investigated the crime and challaned the applicant.
2. ' A bail application filed in the trial Court was rejected by the learned trial Judge by his order, dated 12-8-1986 on the grounds that there is evidence against the applicant of three eye-witnesses and dying declaration of the deceased.
3. ' The learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that the case against the applicant rests on the ocular evidence of three witnesses Meraj, Siraj and Arshad and dying declaration of the deceased before his father and has contended that the ocular evidence has been introduced later as Meraj is the person who was named in the F.I.R. As accomplice in commission of crime, while names of Siraj and Arshad were not disclosed in the F.I.R. And they came in picture only on 23-6- 1986, when their statements were recorded by police. He has also mentioned that the statement of Meraj was recorded by police on 30-6-1986. He has relied upon the cases reported in PLD 1960 SC 223; 1983 P Cr. L J 823; PLD 1985 Kar. 229 and 1985 SCMR 720 to urge that evidence of the witnesses whose statements are recorded after undue delay is not confidence inspiring. He has also contended that the deceased had mentioned the name of Meraj as accomplice of the assailant Shahid Hussain and his coming up in the picture as an eye-witness shakes the dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased. He has advanced the argument that tentative appraisement of evidence can be made while considering grant of bail and he has cited 1985 SCMR 1940 in support of his submission.
4. ' The learned AA.-G. Has opposed the application contending that there is ocular evidence of three witnesses against the applicant and the deceased also had involved him during the course of dying declaration made before his father.
5. ' Mr. IA. Hashmi Advocate, appearing for the complainant also has opposed the application agitating that besides the ocular evidence and dying declaration against the applicant that he had assailed the deceased, bail may be refused also on taking with consideration that the applicant is a desperate and dangerous criminal, being involved in dacoity and murder cases. He has made reference to the cases cited as 1985 P Cr. L J 310; 1984 P Cr. L J 7861; 1985 SCM R 929 NLR 1983 Cr. Judgment 170 and 1983 P Cr. L J 138 Prosecution case against the applicant rests on the evidence of three eyewitnesses, namely Meraj, Siraj and Arshad and dying declaration of the deceased before his father Haji Fayyaz complainant and uncle Mushtaq. Meraj is a person who was mentioned in the F.I.R. As a companion of the applicant at the time of assault on the deceased as disclosed by the deceased in his dying declaration. His statement as an eye-witness was recorded by police on 30-6-1986 i,e, on the 10th day of the incident which took place on 21-6-1986. Names of P.Ws. Siraj and Arshad were not disclosed in the F.I.R. Their statements were recorded by police on 23-6-1986. Induction of Meraj as an eye-witness introduces a version of the incident somewhat different from the one disclosed in the dying declaration of the deceased. It, therefore, appears to be a case for release of the applicant on bail.
6. ' As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the applicant is hardened and desperate criminal as he is involved in murder and dacoity. No documents have been placed on the record to support such allegations made against the applicant.
7. ' Accordingly, the applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties, each solvent in the sum of Rs,25,000 and P.R. In the like amount i,e, Rs,50,000. Sureties to be furnished to the satisiaction of the Nazir of this Court.