1. ' The applicant is facing trial in Crime No,65 of 1997 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Of Police Station Alflah Karachi. The case is pending in the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East. The applicant was arrested in this case on 9-4-1997 and since then he is in custody. It is contended that the trial is not yet concluded without fault on the part of applicant/accused or the Advocate appearing on his behalf. His case is not hit by the IVth Proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is neither desperate nor criminal hardened. It is further asserted that co-accused Jawed Khan was granted bail on 26-2-1998 by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel further argued that even the present accused is entitled for bail on the principle of consistency as the case of co-accused Javed who has been granted bail by the learned trial Court is identical to that of the present applicant. I have heard Mr. Sharafat Ali Khan, Advocate for the State who has conceded to the grant of bail on the ground that the name of accused does not figure in F.I.R. The presence of alleged eye-witnesses is not indicated in F.I.R. At the place of incident. The witnesses did not narrate the happenings of incident to anybody for two days and for the first time the names of accused were taken by them after such an inordinate delay without submitting any explanation.
2. The learned Advocate for State further submitted that accused is in custody for last 27 months and delay is not attributed to defence. He cannot be termed desperate, dangerous or hardened criminal as no such material against him is on record.
3. Accused in this case was arrested on 9-4-1997 and the trial is not concluded. No adverse report is on record to indicate that he is desperate, dangerous or hardened criminal. Co-accused Javed is granted bail about 17 months back. The name of accused does not figure in F.I.R. Eye-witnesses were examined after two days. The contents of F.I.R. Reveal that deceased was taken to Hospital by eye-witness Sultan Akbar immediately after incident. It is surprising, if it is so, then why he did not narrate this incident to anybody.
4. ' For the foregoing reasons, I am of the firm view that the accused is entitled for bail under IIIrd Proviso and the commulative effect of other discrepancies in narrations of incident make the accused entitled for bail.
5. The accused is, therefore, admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.