1. ' Both the above applications on behalf of Mst. Nabeela widow of deceased Muhammad Rajab, Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Jaffar Gopang and Bakht Hussain arise out of the same Crime No,147 of 2001 of Police Station Kotri. Both the applications have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. ' Heard Mr. Madad Ali Shah learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar learned A.A.-G. For the State. Mr. Madad Ali Shah has taken me through the F.I.R. To show that deceased Muhammad Rajab was alleged to have been murdered by some unknown persons in the house of his brother-in-law (wife's brother) Ali Hassan while he was sleeping with his wife applicant Nabeela. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Ghulam Nabi brother of deceased. Complainant is Head Constable in police and deceased was an Ex-Office Superintendent, S.P., Dadu. The complainant has not shown any suspicion in anybody including the applicant and has stated in the F.I.R. That his brother deceased Muhammad Rajab was murdered by some unknown persons and he has no suspicion in any particular person. On 14-11-2000 all the three applicants/accused were arrested. Blood-stained clothes of Mst. Nabeela were recovered. The learned A.A.-G. Has stated that there is no report on the record to show that the blood sustain on the clothes of Mst.
3. Nabeela match with the blood-stain on the clothes of deceased. Muhammad Rajab. One revolver two live bullets and one empty bullet were allegedly recovered on the pointation of the accused Bakht Hussain on 23-11-2000. The prosecution case is that Bakht Hussain fired with revolver bullet on the deceased, in conspiracy with Nabeela. The perusal of medica certificate shows that the entry wound is larger in size than the exit wound. The learned A.A.-G. Has stated that at this stage, he is not able to explain as to how the entry wound is larger in size than exit wound. Nothing has been recovered from Muhammad Aslam. Learned A.A.-G has stated that P.W. Ashique Ali, Faqir Ahmed, Muhammad Chattal anc Dodo who are friends of deceased Rajab Ali stated in their 161, Cr.P.0 statements that they believed that deceased was got murdered by one of his wives namely Nabeela in conspiracy with some other persons. However, they have not stated the reasons for this belief. It would be appropriate to observe that deceased had married five times and four wives were alive at the time of incident who were living at different places. The learned trial Court has rejected the bail application of the applicants mainly placing reliance on the statement of Mst. Soni wife of Ali Hassan who is brother of Nabeela and in whose house Nabeela was staying and deceased was murdered. His 161, Cr.P.C. Statement was recorded on 19-11-2000 i,e, after one month and three days of the incident and 164, Cr.P.C. Statement was recorded on 21-11-2000. The 164, Cr.P.C. Statement is verbatim copy of her 161 statement. Not a single letter or word is different in the two statements. Mr. Madad Ali Shah has submitted that no reliance can be placed on such statements which on the face of it appears to be concocted. Mr. Madad Ali Shah has read the entire 161, Cr.P.C. Statement of Mst. Sohni. She has stated that now the gosip is going to the effect that Mst. Nabeela got her husband Muhammad Rajab murdered in conspiracy with Bakht Hussain and Aslam because of her grievance over other marriages of Muhammad Rajab in spite of the fact that she had several issues from Muhammad Rajab. Mr. Madad Ali Shah has contended that the statement of Soni is belated and even in the said statements there is nothing to connect the applicants with the murder of deceased except that there is gosip suspecting the applicants for the murder of Muhammad Rajab.
4. ' The learned A.A.-G. Has opposed the bail applications but he has not been able to show that there is any material worth reliance on record to connect the applicants with the murder of deceased Muhammad Rajab. The learned trial Court has observed that applicant Muhammad Aslam is minor while Nabeela is admittedly mother of six children.
5. ' Without making any observation on the merits of the case at this stage, I am of the opinion that since the prosecution has not been able to produce any evidence before me from which reasonable grounds may be discerned to prove that the applicants/accused are guilty of the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life therefore, it is a fit case for grant of bail. All the three applicants/accused are granted bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.