1. ' KAMAL MANSUR ALAM, J.--- Applicant is facing trial in the Court of the Special Judge (S.T.A.)
2. Karachi, South for the offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. In Special Case No,502 of 1997 arising out of F.I.R. No,232 of 1996 of Police Station Chakiwara.
3. ' Complainant Sultan Bahadur Khan has alleged in the said F.I.R. That on 20-9-1996 at about 8-30 p.m. On the occasion of a marriage at Shaikh Muhammad Din Community Hall in the presence of large number of guests the applicant along with Azam Khan, both armed with pistol, came to the place and co-accused Azam Khan gave Lalkara to Tarique Ali Abbasi to be ready for the consequences of having insulted the accused at the marriage the previous night. The applicant is said to have then instigated Azam Khan to fire at Tarique Ali whereupon Azam Khan fired from his pistol which hit Tarique Ali who died on way to the hospital. The two accused were caught hold of by several persons present there and were brought to the police station. Statement of Sultan Bahadur was recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C. At the hospital at 10-20 p.m. And was later incorporated in the F.I.R.
4. S.-I. Mushtaque Hussain after registering the F.I.R. Took-up the investigation of the case but after sometime the investigation was entrusted to C.I.A. And later to the Crime Branch. Thus, in this case investigation was conducted by three agencies. In the course of investigation statements of several persons were recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. From time to time, who gave different version of the incident, in that, while some supported the prosecution story, some stated that the deceased was hit by a stray bullet during the usual ceremonial firing at the marriage.
5. ' The main contention of the applicant's counsel is that as two versions of the incident have emerged as a result of the three investigations and in the opinion of the two of the Investigation Officers the applicant was innocent, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of bail. Reference is made to the cases of Muhammad Rafiq v. Abdur Rahman and 5 others 1986 SCM R 1978 and Malik Nazir Ahmed and another v. The State 1989 PCr. 1J 692.
6. ' Mr. Raza Hashmi, the counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently opposes the grant of bail to the applicant. His contention is that with a view to create confusion the case was deliberately entrusted to three different agencies for investigation and that only those persons whose statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer soon after the registration of the F.I.R.
7. Had truthfully stated the facts supporting the prosecution while several of the others who were examined later by the Investigating Officers, were set up with ulterior motive to give different version of the occurrence, and therefore, their statements should not be given any weight.
8. In the challah submitted in Court as many as 50 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution and most of these had been examined during the investigation and as mentioned earlier, had given two different versions of the occurrence. In these circumstances it is not possible, at this stage to give preference to the statements of some of the persons over others, as suggested by complainant's counsel. Accordingly, in view of the two versions of the occurrence and the fact that two of the Investigating Officers had declared the applicant innocent of the crime we consider applicant's case to be of further enquiry. In the result we allow this application and grant bail to the applicant in this case on his furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs,1,00.000 (rupees one lac) each and P.R. Bond in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.