1. ' This bail application arises out of the Crime No,82 of 1998 registered under section 326/34, P.P.C.
2. With Police Station Samanabad, Karachi Central. Earlier similar bail application moved by the applicant has been dismissed under the impugned order dated 3-10-1998.
3. ' Briefly stated, as per F.I.R. The prosecution case is that one Lala Pathan Kabari over a quarrel with small children on 9-9-1998 had threatened the complainant that he would cut their legs. On 10th September, 1998 at about 10' clock while the complainant was sleeping on his push-cart applicant Shera, who is son of Lala Pathan Kabari in company of his two companions appeared and hit him at his left leg chopping the same of his body. The complainant woke up, saw the culprits running away and raised alarm on which his brother Muhammad Ramzan came there and took him to Hospital.
4. ' It is stated that subsequently further statement of the complainant under section 161, Cr.P.0 was recorded on the same day wherein the complainant has given a different story that the applicant had not cut his leg and stated that when he awoke up he only found the applicant standing on his head side and one another unknown person running away and the complainant made an attempt to catch him but could not do so because his leg stood severed from his body and that on commotion Shera also ran away. The neighbourers arrived there alongwith inmates in the meantime who took him to hospital.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was arrested on the third day of the incident and nothing was recovered from him and that the hatchet was also recovered from the place of incident. He submits that since the, complainant has given different and conflicting statements viz statement in F.I.R. And his further statement so much so that in his further statement he has categorically stated that the applicant did not cut his leg, the prosecution case against the applicant has become dubious requiring further enquiry entitling the applicant to the grant of bail.
6. He submits that all these facts were brought to the notice of the learned lower Court but the learned lower Court has not considered the same and has given no findings in respect thereof. He placed reliance on a case reported in 1995 SCM R 1178.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that none of the witnesses have corroborated the story of the applicant as is appearing in the F.I.R. And that only the wife of the complainant has stated in her 161, Cr. P.C. Statement and saw the applicant and another persons running away from the scene of the occurrence although the complainant has not named his wife to have seen anybody or for that matter even she was present at the time of the Incident. He admits that the case of the applicant falls within section 497(2), Cr. P.C. Being a matter of further enquiry and that he has no objection if the bail is granted to the applicant.
8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also examined material available on record. In the circumstances, as are obtaining in this matter, the case against the applicant appears to be of further enquiry. I, therefore, grant bail to the applicant who shall be released on his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond'in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.