' Complainant Mst. Qudsia lodged F.I.R. At Police Station Malir City on 11-4-1998 wherein she stated that her husband Qadeer used to run a hotel known as Qadeer Hotel. On the day of incident, at about 6-00 a.m. He went to open his hotel and at about 8-15 a.m. He came and after taking breakfast, went back to his hotel. She has stated that at about 8-30 a.m. She heard fire shots and came out of her house and found that some persons were running here and there. She went near the hotel and found that her husband was lying in blood pool and had died. She went and informed the police that some unknown persons had killed her husband due to some enmity. The police recorded F.I.R. And carried out the investigation but could not trace out any clue for the culprits. From the record it transpires that second F.I.R. Was lodged at Police Station Khokhrapar on 8-9-1998, in which the statement of Mst. Qudsia was incorporated in 154, Cr.P.C. Book. Khokhrapar Police Station took up investigation and arrested the present applicant on 23-9-1998 and produced him before the Judicial Magistrate, City Court, Karachi on 2-10-1998, where his 164, Cr.P.C.
Statement was recorded by the Magistrate.
2. It is contended by Mr. Mumtaz Ali Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, that except the aforesaid 164, Cr.P.C. Statement of accused, there is no other piece of evidence which could connect the applicant with the commission of this offence. It is argued that 164, Cr.P.C. Statement of accused cannot be used against him under the law and it is only the judicial confession of accused which is to be used against him, if recorded, in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. It is argued that complainant Mst. Qudsia is not the eye-witness of the incident and she has not taken the name of present applicant/accused in her F.I.R. She is not traceable and has not been examined by the trial Court. It is contended that P.W. Abdul Saeed has been examined who has not implicated the present applicant/accused. The learned counsel states that there is absolutely no evidence against the present applicant and case of accused requires further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
3. Mr. Habibur Rasheed, learned counsel appearing for the State, has conceded to the grant of bail on the ground that there is no implicating evidence against the applicant/accused on record and his name does not figure in the F.I.R.
4. The record reveals that name of present applicant does not figure in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. Was recorded on the very first day at Police Station Malir City but subsequently, the second F.I.R. Was recorded at Police Station Khokhrapar on 8-9-1998. Both the F.I.Rs, do not contain the name of present applicant. There is no eye-witness of the incident. The accused was arrested on 23-9-1998 and he was produced before 1st Class Magistrate where instead of recording his judicial confession, 164, Cr.P.C. Statement was recorded. The legal position of said 164, Cr.P.C. Statement is yet to be examined at the time of trial but on the record there is nothing which could show that any judicial confession of applicant/accused was recorded. No further evidence has been collected against the applicant/accused who is in custody for the last 17 months and the trial is not yet concluded.
5. Under such circumstances, it cannot be held that there appear reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty of the non-bailable offences covered by prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. As such, the case of applicant/accused requires further inquiry as contemplated by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The accused is granted bail in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs only) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.