1. ' Applicant Muhammad Fayyaz has moved for bail. He is facing trial in Court of Sessions Judge, Karachi South in Sessions Case No,56 of 1994 which is outcome of F.I.R. No,5/94 of Police Station Kalakot.
2. ' Said F.I.R. Relates to murder of Shahzada Khan on 10-1-1994 at 4-30 p.m. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Muhammad Asif Khan son of deceased Shahzada Khan. He claimed to have learnt from some boys about the murder of his father. Neither he witnessed the incident nor he named any person as an eye-witness. After 8 days of registration of the case, police recorded the statements of Atif Shahzad, Mir Afzal and Amir Jan implicating the present applicant. One day prior complainant Asif had moved an application to the S.H.O. Police Station Kalakot to the effect that some five persons named in the application were harassing and intimidating him and asking him not to pursue the case about murder of his father. He suspected the five persons named in the application to be having hand in murder of his father.
3. ' Mr. M. Wahid Kazi learned counsel for the applicants argued that F.I.R. Was silent about any eye- witness and that the so-called eye-witnesses were examined after a period of 8 days and hence their evidence was of no value. It was added that name of none of the eye-witnesses was mentioned in the F.I.R. And this reduced value of their evidence to nil. Mir Afzal was said to be brother-in-law of the deceased, while P.W. Atif was said to be son of the deceased. Amir Jan did not see the incident but she saw the applicant telling the deceased that his guests had come to Bakra Piri and he should go there. It was also argued that the complainant in his application moved before S.H.O. Kalakot on 17-1-1994 had not named the applicant to have, hand in murder of his father. Learned counsel cited the cases of:--
(i) The State v. Abdul Haque and others 1990 SCM R 263.
(ii) Sufi Mahinwal v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 746.
4. ' Mr. S. Amjad Ali Shah, learned AA.-G. Conceded that there was no evidence against the applicant and that he deserved bail.
5. ' In the case of Sufi Mahinwal 1994 PCr.LJ 746 the view taken was that absence of the name of the accused from the F.I.R. Had itself constituted sufficient ground for making further inquiry into the question of his guilt or otherwise. Case of Abdul Haque and others 1990 SCM R 263 is of no help as in said case the Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to cancel the by the High Court.
6. However, on merits, a case for bail has been made out. Three eye-witnesses have been examined after 8 days and their names do not appear in the F.I.R. There is no other evidence against the applicant. Complainant in his application dated 17-1-1994 did not implicate the applicant.
7. ' For the foregoing reasons I accept this application and grant bail to applicant Muhammad Fayyaz in sum of Rs,1,00,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Karachi South.