1. ' Applicant Ali Nawaz has moved for bail in a case which is outcome of F.I.R. 132 of 1992 of Police station New Foujdari, District Shikarpur.
2. ' According to the prosecution, about 34/35 days prior to 19-12-1992 P.Ws. Ayaz and Imtiaz were accompanied by deceased Rubina from bus stop of Kiran Village to Gabrani village. On the way at about 10-30 a.m. Applicant All Nawaz and co-accused Abdul Ghani, All Bux, Amir Bux and Rahim Bux emerged from a Wahi. Applicant instigated the co-accused not to spare Rubina, who was not coming to terms in respect of the land matter. At such instigation, Amir Bux and Rahim Bux took out pistols and fired the same at Rubina. Rubina received the fire-arm shots and fell down. Co- accused Abdul Ghani and All Bux strangulated Rubina. Ultimately Rubina died at the spot. Rahim Bux took out cash from the purse of the Rubina and removed golden ornaments from her body.
3. Amir Bux kept guard over P.Ws. Ayaz and Imtiaz aged about 14 years and eight years, respectively.
4. Remaining co-acussed and the applicant dragged dead body of Rubina towards East, and threw the same in a canal. The two witnesses were permitted to leave, after being given warning not to raise any cry.
5. ' The two boys went to Karachi to convey facts of the incident to Mst. Amir mother of deceased Rubina, who was living at Karachi. On learning about the incident, she fell ill. On becoming all right, she went to Police StationNew Foujdari and lodged her F.I.R on 19-12-1992.
6. ' Ghani, Amir Bux and Ali Bux and his nephew Rahim Bux. Out of them Ali Bux is in custody while Abdul Ghani, Amir Bux and Rahim Bux are absconding. In support learned counsel for the applicant cited the case of Karim Haider and others v. State 1986 SCMR 938.
7. ' The application was opposed by Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, AA.-G. For State. Learned AA.-G. Was of the view that besides instigating the co-accused, applicant Ali Nawaz had joined three co- accused in dragging the dead body of Mst. Rubina to a canal. It was also argued that there was ocular evidence of Ayaz and Imtiaz examined by police on 1942-1990, besides the evidence about motive. In support learned A.A.-G. Cited the cases of Iqbal v. The State 1982 SCM R 84 and Dhani Bux and others v. State 1989 SCM R 238.
8. ' In the case of Iqbal 1982 SCMR 84, the accused who was armed with a stick and no blunt weapon injury was attributed to him found on the dead body, was refused bail in a murder case on the ground that he had acted in preconcert and had removed money from pocket of the deceased. In the case of Dhani Bux v. The State 1989 SCMR 239 the motive attributed to the accused was found sufficient and each of the accused was identified and was named in the F.I.R. And the witnesses had fully supported the prosecution case, no prima facie case was made out against the accused for having acted in furtherance of their common intention to kill some body and the order refusing bail was maintained. In the present case, the applicant is not alleged to have taken out any cash or ornaments from the dead body. Moreover, the witnesses have yet to implicate the applicant and the co-accused in this case. Hence the cited cases are distinguishable.
9. 'In the case of Karim Haider 1986 SCMR 938 it was held that unexplained inordinate delay in registration of case entitles an accused to grant of bail. In the cited case the incident occurred on 21-6-1984 and F.I.R. Was lodged on 5-7-1984 viz. After about 10 days. In the present case the delay is for 34/35 days. There is force in the contention that applicant Ali Nawaz has not taken any part in killing Mst. Rubina except instigating the co-accused. Learned counsel made statement at the Bar that the applicant was aged about 70 years. He has already remained in jail for about four months.
10. There is no likelihood of this case proceeding in the near future because three of the accused are absconding. In these circumstances, the applicant is granted bail. The applicant be released on bail if he furnishes two sureties in sum of Rs,1,00,000 each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur and executes P.R. Bond in the like amount before the Sessions Judge.