' Applicant Islamuddin has been booked for an offence punishable under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. F.I.R. In this case contains a. Written statement under section 154, Cr. P.C. Of Muhammad Hashim.
The complainant stated in his complaint that he is residing with his family at Zaman Town and on 23-9-2001 at about 7-00 a.m. His son Adil informed him on telephone that complainant's brother Jahangir has been murdered by cutting his throat with sharp-edged weapon by someone when he' was sleeping in his house. The complainant rushed to his brother's house. No, A/360, Korangi No, 6, Karachi where people had already collected in front of the house. He entered the house and found the dead-body of his brother Jahangir was hanging against the ceiling fan with electric wire and his throat (Windpipe) was cut with sharp-edged weeping and there was blood on the floor.
The matter remained undetected until 21-10-2000, when the police could examine two witnesses Shabbir and Dilawar who implicated the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for applicant while advancing the bail plea on the strength of the case-law Waris Muhammad v: State (1976 SCM R 182) submitted that the name of culprit was disclosed after a long period and no identification test was held in respect of . Applicant the guilt of applicant therefore calls for further inquiry. Mr. Jawaid Hyder Kazmi, learned counsel for complainant argued that delay in recording the statement of prosecution witnesses shall not be a determining factor at the bail stage. He relied on Imtiaz Ahmed v. State (PLD .1997 S.C. 545). Learned State Counsel Mr. Qazi Wali Muhammad contended that the evidence of these two witnesses cannot be discarded as they have no enmity with the applicant.
4. I have considered these contentions carefully. It is true that the statements of Shabbir and Dilawar have been recorded at a very late stage but the Investigating Officer has appeared in Court and on reading the police diaries has clarified that the said witnesses had gone out of city due to fear and on the relevant day one Rashid brother of the deceased produced them before the police and then he recorded statements under section 161, Cr,P.C. The law pronounced by a larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Imtiaz Ahmed's case (supra) is clear that the effect of delay in recording of the evidence of ' witnesses could not be determined at bail stage. I am of the humble view that it is premature at this stage to discard the evidence of these witnesses outright, unless they give some evidence which may create a doubt about the identity of the applicant at the trial.
The bail plea being premature the application is-dismissed.