1. ' The present applicant is seeking bail in Case No,4 of 2001 registered with Police Station Tando Muhammad Khan under section 302/34, P.P.C. The present applicant moved bail application before the trial Court but without success.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that on 13-1-2001 complainant Pirbho Kolhi lodged F.I.R. Stating therein that deceased Khemachand was his elder brother, who was Hari of Nawab Jatoi. On 20-12-2000 at evening time he inquired about deceased from his wife, who replied that the deceased after sloughing the land returned to house at 4-00 p.m. And then took the gun of his father. She further informed the complainant that on her enquiry deceased told that son of Zamindar had told him to bring the gun as he has got cartridges and that they will go for hunting. The complainant waited for whole night for deceased who did not turn up and on the next morning complainant along with his relative approached son of Zamindar and other villagers but did not find any clue of deceased.
3. It is further the case of the complainants that on 13-1-2001, at morning time complainant along with Khemo Kolhi had gone for catching the fish at Choubandi Lake. There at about 7-00 a.m. They saw a red Loee and also felt smell coming from the straws standing the lane. On this, they went ahead and found dead body of Kheemchand lying straight in water. Complainant then leaving Kheemon over dead body came to village and narrated the facts to his relatives so also villagers, who went towards the dead body while complainant himself approached Nekmard, who advised him to lodge report. He suspected that present accused along with co-accused Gulo, Liaq Rind and son of Ghulam Hussain, who all were friends of deceased, on the pretext, took deceased for hunting and then committed his Qatl-i-Amd. After usual investigation, the Police submitted challan against present accused, co-accused Guloo while Rajabali and Gulo and Gul Hassan in Column II.
4. ' Mr. S. Madad Ali Shah, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that there is delay of about 24 days in lodging the F.I.R., which goes unexplained by the prosecution. According to him, it is unwitnessed incident. He has further drawn my attention on the statements of the cast fellows of deceased, recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. After delay of one month, 3 days and the witnesses, namely Rashi, Karman and Laloo have stated that deceased was found in the company of the accused persons whereas the statement of other witnesses, namely Ali Murad and Jot Chand were recorded on 27-1-2001 after delay of one month, 7 days wherein they have implicated the present applicant, such delay also remained unexplained by the prosecution as to why at such belated stage the statements of the witnesses were recorded and finally prayed for the grant of bail to the applicant. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon 1993 SCM R 1321 and 1997 SCM R 1836.
5. ' On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar, learned State Counsel has raised no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant.
6. ' I have heard Mr. S. Madad Ali Shah, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar, learned State Counsel and have gone through the material available on record.
7. ' Admittedly, the F.I.R. Is blank and there is delay of 24 days in lodging the F.I.R. Which goes unexplained by the prosecution. Reliance can be placed on the case reported in 1986 SCM R 938 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail to the accused on the charge of abduction/kidnapping on the ground of 14 days' delay in lodging F.I.R. In the instant case there is delay of 24 days in lodging the FA.R., which goes unexplained by the prosecution. The statements of Rashi Karman and Laloo have been recorded after inordinate delay and the prosecution is gagged as to why there was delay in recording their statements. There is further scope of probe in the matter and his case is falling under the provisions of section 497(2), Cr. P. C .
8. In view of the no objection given by Mr. Mohammad Azeem Panhwar, learned State Counsel and the law cited by Mr. Mazher Ali Shah, learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the considered view that the present applicant has been able to make out a good prima facie case for the grant of bail.
9. Accordingly, applicant Maujan Jatoi is granted bail in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.