1. The present applicant alongwith co-accused Mir have been sent up to stand trial under section 302/201/34, P.P.C. In Crime No.113/90 of Police Station Kashmore. Briefly the prosecution case as given in the F.I.R. By the complainant Saifuddin is that his niece Mst. Ameenat was married to one Ahsan Ahmed and had five children from him. It is further stated that on 20-6-1990 the brother of deceased Ameenat, namely, Sadik Ali and Hidayat Ali had gone to her house to bring her for Eid and as they did not return for two days the complainant alongwith his other nephew Abdullah also went there on the evening of 21-6-1990 where he met the brothers of deceased also. It is said that they stayed there for the night when at about 3-00 a.m. They heard cries of the deceased on which they were awakened and saw the present applicants Nazir Ahmed and Shah Nawaz were causing strangulation to her with a rope while the third applicant Mir was standing there armed with, a gun.
2. It is said that out of fear the complainant and his nephews did not go near. The accused party is then said to have taken away the dead body of Mst. Ameenat in a bullock cart. The accused are said to have claimed that the deceased was on illicit terms with one Mangar Jakharni and, therefor, she was killed. The complainant party then informed their Nekmard on the next day who said he will send for the accused but the accused did not come and then complainant had been making applications to higher authorities and ultimately on the call from the police he lodged the F.I.R. An application for bail before arrest for all the 3 accused was moved wherein interim bail was granted but subsequently the bail application was dismissed. Thereafter an application for bail before arrest was moved before the Honourable Supreme Court which was also ultimately dismissed. Thereafter the present applicant and co-accused Mir were arrested while the 3rd co- accused Shah Nawaz is said to be absconding. The case was challaned on 1-9-1991 and was sent up to the 1st Additional Sessions Judge's Court for trial where the bail application was moved on behalf of the present applicant which was rejected and, therefor, this bail application.
3. I have heard Mr. Abdul Hakim Bijarani for the applicant and Mr. Zaheer Qureshi, learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that the F.I.R. Has been lodged with the delay of one month and one day. This plea of the learned counsel was dealt with by ate while order was passed in Criminal Bail' Application No.549 of 1990 whereby the application for bail before arrest moved on behalf of all the 3 accused was declined. In view of the above I am not inclined to accept this plea of the learned counsel. The leaned counsel for the applicant has then submitted that the police has been investigating the case for a period of about 15 months and, thereafter, have submitted the challan in the case. He has further submitted that the present applicant have been involved in the case on account of enmity and that there is no direct evidence except for the oral statement of the complainant and his nephews to implicate the present applicant in commission of the alleged crime. He has also submitted that the police has not recovered any incriminating evidence in support of the prosecution case. Neither the rope with which the deceased is said to have been strangulated nor the bullock cart on which the dead body is said to have been carried away are recovered. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the alleged incident is said to have taken place during dead of the night inside the house but it has not been shown if there was any electric bulb or lantern on which the accused could have been identified. It is further submitted that the statements of P.Ws. Sadiq Ali and Hidayat contradict the version of the complainant inasmuch as the said statements show that the complainant after returning to their village lodged the F.I.R.
4. Mr. Zaheer Oureshi, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application on the ground that the eye-witnesses in their statements have implicated the present accused and have fully supported the version of the prosecution. However, he has candidly conceded that the Mashirnama of Wardat does not show if the house wherein the alleged offence is said to have been committed had any electric connection or if there, was any lantern available there. As regards the statement of the P.Ws. Learned counsel states that there is only a minor contradiction in the statements of the P.Ws. Which can best be resolved at the time the evidence is recorded. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel to the fact that almost 1-1/2 years passed but the police has not been able to secure even Bullock cart in which the dead body is said to have been carried away nor the dead body is recovered and that identification of the accused has been rendered doubtful for want of light and that except the two P.Ws., there is no independent evidence available at present to support the prosecution case. In these circumstances I am of the view that this is a case which calls for further enquiry. I accordingly admit the applicant to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety and P.R. Bond in the like amount to be furnished to the satisfaction of the trial Court.