1. ' The applicant Jamil Ahmed is facing trial in the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. Arising out of F.I.R. No,271 of 2000 of Police Station Defence.
2. ' Complainant Waheed Aslam on 13-11-2000 at about 11-25 hours lodged F.I.R. Stating therein that one Muhammad Jamil Khan came to his house and informed him that he had gone to the Carum Club and found its lock open and saw that Saeed Aslam was lying dead on the Carum Board in the accumulated blood. The complainant after receiving this information, proceeded towards that place alongwith his other brothers and saw that Saeed Aslam was lying dead having bullet injury on his temple. He had another wound on his backside of the waist. They found two empties of .30 bore pistol and one lead lying there. It is stated that A.S.-I. Aziz Hussain and other Police Officers reached at the spot and started making usual correspondence. The complainant party was on dispute with Abdul Majeed, Muhammad Farooq Khan and others over some House bearing No,479/6-J-1 situated at Junejo Town. One day prior to the incident, accused Muhammad Farooq Khan had come to the complainant and directed him that he should send his brother Saeed Aslam and Jamil Khan as their rival party was causing harassment to him. The complainant conveyed this message to his brother.
3. ' The police after registration of F.I.R. Carried out investigation and arrested Abdul Majeed, Farooq and Riyasat. The said persons were later on released by police under section 169, Cr.P.C.
4. Subsequently, the present applicant was arrested on 11-12-2000 and the challan was submitted against him.
5. ' It is contended by the learned counsel that the name of present applicant does not figure in the F.I.R. As a culprit. The police examined two witnesses namely Muhammad Iqbal and Ajmal Tabasum on. 12-12-2000 and 13-12-2000 respectively. The 161, Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W. Muhammad Iqbal shows that applicant Jamil was previously known to him and he has not stated anything against him in his statement. The statement of P.W. Ajmal Tabasum also does not implicate the present applicant except that the applicant was seen near the place of incident on the day of incident. It is submitted that the persons against whom the motive is attributed by the complainant had been let off by the police. The present applicant had absolutely no reason to commit murder of Saeed Aslam. The applicant was arrested on 11-12-2000 and the alleged articles were recovered from him on 20-12-2000. The articles are immaterial for the purpose of connecting the accused with the commission of offence. The said articles are Railway Pass pertaining to the year 1976, copy of N.I.C. And the medical prescription slip of deceased. It is contended that the applicant had absolutely no necessity to keep all these articles of deceased with him.
6. ' Mr. Arshad Lodhi, learned A.A.-G. Has supported the impugned bail order and stated that P.Ws.
7. Muhammad Iqbal and Ajmal Tabasum had seen the. Applicant at the relevant time near Wardat and that the articles belonging to deceased were recovered at the pointation of applicant.
8. ' Mr. Qaiser Hayat, Advocate for the complainant has adopted the arguments of learned A.A.-G.
9. And stated that the applicant is not entitled for bail and the bail application is premature.
10. The perusal of material placed on record shows that there is no ocular evidence of the incident.
11. The name of present applicant does not transpire in the F.I.R. As an accused. The motive is attributed to some other persons, who have been let off by the police. The applicant is booked for this offence on the basis of statements of two P.Ws. Muhammad Iqbal and Ajmal Tabasum. Their statements were recorded after about 30 days of the incident and no explanation for such an inordinate delay is furnished either by complainant or the said witnesses. Even in their 161, Cr.P.C.
12. Statements, they have not implicated the present applicant. Applicant Jamil Ahmed was previously known to P.W. Muhammad Iqbal but he did not express in his 161, Cr.P.C. Statement that Jamil Ahmed was involved in the commission of murder of Saeed Aslam. Both the abovmentioned witnesses were silent for about one month and it appears that they are subsequently set up by the police in connivance of complainant party. The applicant was arrested on 11-12-2000 and recovery was made after nine (9) days of the incident. The recovered articles have no nexus with the commission of murder. Under such circumstances, there appear no reasonable grounds at this stage for believing that the applicant is guilty of an offence covered by prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. His case, therefore, requires further inquiry as contemplated by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The applicant was granted bail by a short order, dated 20-3-2001 and these are the detailed reasons for the same.
13. ' The observations mentioned above are tentative and the trial Court should not be influenced by them at the time of dictating judgment.