1. ' On 2nd August, 1999 at about 02-00 hours, the complainant Imam Ali son of Muhammad Malook caste Chandio lodged an F.I.R. With Kharipur Nathan Shah Police Station alleging therein that on 1st August, 1999 at about 09-00 hours his brother Ghulam Nabi sustained injuries at the hands of applicant No,1 namely Waris Chandio whereafter the complainant reached village Murad Chandio and met his injured brother who was present in his house and who narrated the story that while he was grazing his cattle in the jungle alongwith cousin Sono he saw applicant/accused Waris Chandio armed with gun, applicant/accused Ahmed Chandio armed with hatchet and applicant No,3 Jehan Khan armed with Lathi. It is further alleged in the hat they encircled injured Ghulam Nabi and raised Lalkara to kill him. Injured Ghulam Nabi raised cries upon which Sono son of Habib came running, there. It is further alleged that Waris fired at injured Ghulam Nabi with his gun on his chest while accused Ahmed gave the hatchet injuries to the said injured and accused Jehan Khan also gave Lathi injuries to him. It is also alleged that Sono requested these applicants/accused persons in the name of Holy Qur'an who stopped causing further injuries and left the scene whereafter Sono brought the injured to his house.
2. ' I have heard Mr. Muhammad Sharif H. Qazi for applicants/accused and Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio for the State. I have also perused the police papers. The first ground raised is that the F.I.R. Was lodged after a delay of more than 36 hours for which there is no explanation with the prosecution. It is also contended that the alleged incident took place within the territorial limits of Khairpur Nathan Shah Police Station where there is already a Taluka Hospital which has medico-legal services but instead of going to Taluka Hospital, the complainant took his brother to Dadu which is far off place from their residence and asked help from one A.S.-I. Gul Muhammad of Police Station Dadu who got injured examined at Dadu Civil Hospital whereafter injured was brought back to Khairpur Nathan Shah Police Station where the 'instant F.I R was lodged. On the point of delay Mr. Muhammad Sharif H. Qazi has referred to the case of Barkat Masih v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ 2734, Rahim Klan v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 1478, Sarfraz v. The State 1981 PCr.LJ 1031 and Mhanda v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 86.
3. ' In the case of Barkat Masih (supra) a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court Ghulam Mujadid Mirza, J. (as his Lordship then was) granted bail to an accused involved in an offence under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 on the grounds of delay in lodging F.I.R. In the case of Rustam Khan (supra) the delay in lodging F.I.R. Was also one of the ground for granting bail to an accused who was involved in an offence under sections 307, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Likewise this Court also granted bail in the case of Sarfraz (supra) in the offence under sections 365, 342, 307 and 506, P.P.C. As the F.I.R. Was lodged after the delay of four hours. In the case of Mahanda (supra) the bail was granted on one of the grounds that the F.I.R. Was lodged after the delay of two days. Delay is not always fatal to the prosecution case but often it gives rise to the presumption that such delay may have given an opportunity to the complainant party to falsely involve the accused in the case. Thus, where in the F.I.R. Reasonable and convincing explanation is given for delay in lodging the F.I.R. Such delay is to be ignored. In the instant case prosecution has yet to forward a plausible reason for such delay. The injured after suffering three injuries as alleged in the F.I.R. Went to his home instead of police station or to the hospital and thereafter, waited for 12 hours and then left to Dadu where he was examined in a hospital far off from the place of Wardat and the police station. This also reflects the seriousness of the injuries allegedly suffered by the injured. In the first place, he went to his house after receiving injuries from hatchet and Lathi blows. Secondly, the injured was discharged from Dadu Hospital after first aid.
4. Any benefit arising from these circumstances must go to the applicant/accused even at the bail stage (see Amir v. The State PLD 1972 SC 277).
5. Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio learned counsel appearing for the State has conceded to the grant of bail and contended that no empties were recovered from the place of Wardat. He has also pointed out contradictions in the medico-legal report of the injured and the deposition of prosecution witnesses as recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. However, I am not inclined to offer any comments on these statements as it may prejudice the case of either prosecution or the defence. Suffice it to say that it is a case of further enquiry. Mr. Muhammad Sharif H. Qazi has also referred to other reported cases which I would not like to discuss for the reason that from the material placed before this Court, I am satisfied that the prosecution need some more material to connect the present applicant/accused with the alleged offence.
6. As a result of above discussion, this bail application is accepted and all the three applicants/accused shall be released on bail, if not required in any other offence, upon furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) each with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. All the comments made in this order are tentative and in no manner shall prejudice the trial.