1. ' The applicant Gul Muhammad Shah is facing trial for the offence punishable under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C., in Crime No,75 of 2000 of Police Station Matli in the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin.
2. ' Mr. M.M. Aqil Awan, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in F.I.R. No,75 of 2000, the role attributed to the present applicant Gul Muhammad Shah is that at the time of incident he was armed with dagger and caused dagger blows to the deceased Haji Aftab on his back. He has contended that there is established enmity between the applicant and the complainant party. In this regard he has referred to F.I.R. No,88 of 1999 lodged by the applicant Gul Muhammad Shah at Police Station Matli for the commission of murder of his brother Jamal Shah in which principal accused was Aftab Nizamani. He has submitted that Aftab Nizamani, the deceased in this case and the principal accused in Crime No,88 of 1999 was fugitive at law and remained absconder till he was himself murdered. He has produced document to show that deceased Aftab Nizamani was declared proclaimed offender. He has further pointed out that Abdul Haque and Ghulam Akbar, co-accused in this case were arrested in Crime No,24 of 2000, of Police Station Jhok. He has submitted that the deceased and other co-accused in the above cited cases were notorious persons and had enmity with so many persons, therefore, possibility of the commission of the murder by any person who was inimical to the deceased cannot be ruled out. Mr. Awan has further contended that the incident in this case took place on 15-8-2000 and applicant Gul Muhammad Shah was arrested on 24-8-2000. A Chhuri was recovered from his possession on 4-9-2000 and the challan was submitted on 7-9-2000. He has contended that the alleged crime weapon has been foisted on the present applicant. In support of his contention he has submitted that according to F.I.R. The present applicant was armed with dagger, while according to Mashirnama of recovery a Chhuri was recovered from his possession and according to description of the crime weapon given in the challan, it is a knife.
3. ' He has further submitted that according to medical certificate injuries Nos.10 and 11 on the person of deceased Haji Aftab Nizamani were stab wound. One was just below skin on back of the neck and the other was on middle of the upper back of the chest. He has further contended that the doctor has opined that, injuries Nos.1 and 2 which are fire-arm injuries caused the death. He has further pointed out that according to the opinion of Medical Officer the probable time between the injury and death was 2 to 5 minutes, from which it can be inferred that the death was not result of stab wounds, caused by sharp-cutting weapon.
4. ' Mr. Awan has further submitted that co-accused Abdullah Awan was granted bail by this Court for the reason that there was an allegation of causing injuries to the deceased by country made pistol and all the fire-arm injuries on the person of deceased were bullet injuries. He has placed reliance on a D.B. Judgment of Lahore High Court, reported as 1999 PCr.LJ 184, wherein bail was granted on account of contradiction in the ocular version and the medical certificate. Mr. Awan has frankly stated that the deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage is not warranted in law, but according to him the facts which are apparent can be taken into consideration for tentative assessm ent of the prosecution evidence and the role assigned to an accused person. He has lastly contended that the applicant is in jail for the last 14 months and his brother was earlier murdered, at the hands of complainant party. He has submitted that in these circumstances the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
5. ' On the other hand Mr. Qazi Wali Muhammad, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. He has submitted that the contention pertaining to the exact nature of crime weapon, if it was a dagger or Chhuri or knife is a matter which requires recording of evidence and can be appreciated after the prosecution evidence is recorded. He has submitted that the present applicant is named in the F.I.R. And specific role has been assigned to him i,e, of causing dagger injuries to the deceased which is supported by the medical certificate. He has contended that at this stage it is sufficient for the prosecution to show that the ocular version of causing injuries with the sharp-cutting weapon is supported with the medical certificate. He has next contended that in addition to the complainant and other witnesses to whom enmity may be attributed, there are two independent witnesses who have implicated the applicant for causing injuries to the deceased. He has submitted that in the wake of testimony of two independent witnesses, it would not be proper to grant bail in murder case.
6. ' I have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the parties. The main plank of argument by Mr. Aqil Awan is that the parties are on inimical terms to each other and, therefore, he has referred to the earlier F.I.R. Lodged by the present applicant, against the deceased Haji Aftab Nizamani. I have examined the F.I.R. With reference to this contention and have found that it is in the F.I.R. That when the accused persons were challenged and the witnesses raised hue and cries, the accused persons retorted that this was the revenge of the murder of Jamal Shah. The enmity is a double-edged weapon which cuts both the ways. At this stage it cannot be said that the present applicant was falsely implicated because of the enmity, as there is more stronger possibility, of committing murder of the deceased Aftab Nizamani, for taking revenge of Jamal Shah brother of the applicant, A more particularly in the wake of availability of evidence of the two independent witnesses to whom Mr. Aqil Awan, has branded as chance witnesses, as they are alleged to be coming in the car at the time of incident. However, there is nothing on the record to show that those two witnesses had any axe to grind against the applicant.
7. So far the grant of bail to the co-accused Abdullah is concerned, it has distinguishing feature, which is very glaring. In the case of Abdullah, there was allegation of causing injuries with country made pistol, while there were no pellet injuries on the person of deceased. In the case of present applicant there is allegation of causing dagger injuries and the medical certificate supports the version.
8. ' In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the present applicant, and consequently the bail plea is rejected.