1. ' This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant Shahan son of Muhammad Punhal who is involved in a case as Crime No,29 of 1994 under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. ' The allegations made in the F.I.R. Are that the deceased Muhammad Ayub, the son of the sister of complainant Ghulam Fareed was called away in the night from his house by accused Shahan, Mitho and Ghulam Mustafa on the previous night. It is in the F.I.R. That said Mitho had a gun in his hand while other two accused had hatchets. According to the complainant, the deceased did not return home till morning and, therefore, they set on search for him and had met, on way, their caste-fellows Ali Sher and Fakir Muhammad who also told him that they had seen the deceased with the said accused persons. Thereafter the complainant party found the dead body of the deceased near the land of Haji Khuda Bux and such report was made by the complainant. Police arrested the accused and after usual investigation, the case was sent up for trial. The bail application was moved for the applicant before the trial Court which was rejected and, therefore, this bail application.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Roshan Ali, M. Solangi, learned counsel for the applicant who has submitted that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R., and that the allegations against the applicant are only vague and no recovery has been made from him. The counsel appearing for the State has very vehemently opposed this bail application and submitted that there is very strong substantial evidence of "last seen" against the present applicant and co-accused.
4. I have consideration the submissions of the learned counsel. As regards the first Question about the daily , it may be observed that the same standard explained as according to complainant they had been searching their nephew who had not returned to the house on the night and ultimately on the next day when they found his dead body they reported the matter to police. The second point urged by the learned counsel is that the allegations are vague. It may be observed that according to the complainant the deceased was called away from the house in the night time and that there is a very strong substantial evidence of having last seen the deceased in the company of the named accused by the two other witnesses as well and that these two witnesses, namely, Ali Sher and Fakir Muhammad who have fully implicated the present applicant in their statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has then further argued that there is no recovery from the applicant nor any identification test has been held. As regards the recovery, the allegation against the present applicant is that he was armed with hatchet while the death is caused with a gunshot injury. However, his presence has been asserted by the witnesses and in such circumstances the applicability of section 34, P.P.C. At this stage would not be ruled out. It will be only at the time of the trial when the witnesses are put to cross-examination that the said point can be thrashed. As regards the identification test, it may be observed that the accused are named in the F.I.R. And, therefore, the question of holding identification test does not arise. Lastly, the learned counsel has argued that co-accused Muhib had already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No,21 of 1995. Suffice it to say that the said co-accused was granted bail on the ground that he is not named in the F.I.R. Nor any overt act is attributed to him. In these circumstances, it is not possible to ascertain at this stage as to whether there are any grounds to believe that there is no likelihood of involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the said offence unless at least the witnesses who had seen the accused in their company are examined. With these observations, the bail application stands rejected.