1. ' The applicant Dur Muhammad son of Muhammad Ramzan is detained in F.I.R. No,49 of 1993, registered at Police Station City, Jacobabad for having committed offences under sections 302, 34, P.P.C. Read with section 324, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance. The applicant had applied for bail before the trial Court but the same was rejected, as such the applicant has preferred the present bail application.
2. ' The case of the prosecution is that on 18-6-1993, the complainant had gone to Jacobabad City where he met the witnesses namely; Shamsher and Allan. They all had come to the Piri for the purpose of selling their cattle. It is said that the complainant and the witnesses wanted to go to a nearby hotel for their meals and as such they proceeded to one hotel. It is further said that the deceased Shah Ali wanted to attend to the call of nature and therefore, he had gone ahead of the said hotel. It was about 11-30 a.m. At that time when the complainant saw the present applicant alongwith co-accused Timoo who was coming at faster pace towards the deceased. Thereafter they heard the present applicant telling the deceased that he was their Karo and therefore, they will kill him. So saying the applicant Dur Muhammad is said to have fired at the deceased who received injury and fell down. In the process one Hazoor Bux had also received injury on his shoulder. In the meanwhile a police party was passing from there who followed the accused and caught them at the spot. From the present applicant a T.T. Pistol was also recovered, thereafter the injured were removed to the hospital while the applicant alongwith co-accused were taken to the police station where the complainant lodged the report. After usual investigation the accused have been challaned. Co-accused Timoo has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No,533 of 1993 at Sukkur. ' have heard learned counsel for the applicant and so also Mr. S.Z.A. Qureshi, learned counsel for the State. Mr. Chohan has submitted that there are peculiar circumstances in this case which prima facie suggest even at bail stage that it was an unwitnessed crime. He has further submitted that he is not asking the Court to appraise the evidence but his contention is that tentative assessm ent of the material available on the record is not only permissible but must be done in order to come to a prima facie conclusion. The learned counsel submitted that according to F.I.R.
3. The allegations against the present applicant is that he fired at the deceased and it was nowhere mentioned that the shots were fired from the back side but the resultant injury as detected by the medical officer are three wounds of entry and three wounds of exit. All the three entry wounds are on the back of the deceased. In other words, learned counsel submits that if this was the position and if the witnesses had been present, they would have clearly stated so that the shots were fired at the back of the deceased but this has not been so stated. His next contention was that even in bail matters if any doubt arises, the benefit of doubt in bail cases is also to be given to the accused and in this regard he has relied on the case of Ameer v. The State reported in PLD 1972 SC 277. He has lastly, submitted that there are so many interpolations on various Mashirnamas as well as postmortem report which clearly suggests that the investigation in this case is questionable. Faced with the last contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the State, no doubt admitted that he has no answer to the interpolations on the record but nevertheless he has opposed this bail application.
4. ' I have carefully considered the material available on record and the points raised by the learned counsel. It is an admitted position on the record that interpolations are galore in this case. In this regard according to the F.I.R. The incident had taken place on 18-6-1993 at 11-30 a.m. And the police party is supposed to have arrested both the applicants at the spot but if we look at the Mashirnama of arrest there is clear interpolation at two places the time of preparation of the Mashirnama is shown to be some thing else having been over written by the figure 12.45 dated 18- 6-1993 and at the bottom of the said Mashirnama again there is interpolation in respect of number of accused arrested. One fails to understand why the mashirnama of Wardat and the. Mashirnama of arrest which is usually prepared commonly in such cases was not done so in this case.
5. Furthermore there is Mashirnama regarding the inspection of the dead body of deceased Shah All of the same date and by interpolation the time of the preparation of the Mashirnama has been changed to read as 1345 hours. Then there is mashirnama in respect of injuries on injured Hazoor Mix. This was also prepared on the same date but in the time of preparation of the same, there is interpolation after which it reads as 1355 hours. Without making any further comments on these interpolations, it will suffice to say that these interpolations appear to have been made in order to fit in with the other circumstances of the case. Obviously, it is the Investigating Officer who will ultimately have to answer the same, but from the prima facie point of view it does reflect on the authenticity of the investigation of this case. I may.Also refer to the inquest report in which there is interpolation in column No,5, the date is 18-6-1993 but the time of inspection has been interpolated to read as 12-05 and in column No,4 the dead body is mentioned to be present in the Civil Hospital Jacobabad at 12-00 day time. On the other hand, the date and time of arrival of the dead body as per the post-mortem report is shown to be 12-05 p.m. On the same day and the interpolation made in the inquest report seems to have been done for the purpose of coinciding the same with the time of arrival as given by the medical officer.
6. ' The aforesaid circumstances coupled with another circumstance is that all the material, witnesses in this case are resident of Mirwah, Balochistan, whereas the incident in the present case had taken place opposite Sohni Cinema, bazar area of Jacobabad during the day time, but surprisingly no independent witness has been examined by the police in this case.
7. ' Taking into consideration all these circumstances, I am of the view that the case of the applicant requires further enquiry based on the fact that from the tentative assessment of the material there is doubt regarding the investigation and therefore, by giving the benefit of doubt to the applicant he is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.