' Shaukat petitioner was named in the first information report which was lodged on 1-12-1976 by Muhammad Sarwar at Police Station Sadar, Sheikhupura with regard to an occurrence, which is alleged to have taken place on 30-11-1976 at 7-45 p.m. Within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid police station.
' The part attributed to the petitioner is that he fired the fatal shot. He applied for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, that request was turned down by order dated 27- 9-1977. Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition submitted that although it is alleged in the F. I. R. That the petitioner was armed with a shot-gun but no gun had been recovered from him nor even an empty. The next ground urged was the plea of alibi, in support of which he placed 15 affidavits on the record. Relying on Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Anwar Ahmad Khan and another (1) learned counsel submitted that this plea duly supported by affidavits provides good ground iii law for grant of bail to the petitioner.
' Last of all, while referring to the motive, it was argued that previously the complainant had killed his own wife and what was the guarantee that now he has killed his own son.
3. Learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail.
4. I have considered the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The mere fact that no recovery had been made at the instanc of the petitioner makes no material difference, because there is other importan evidence in the form of ocular account. The effect of recovery would examined by the trial Court at the proper stage. Similarly I do not think the petitioner is entitled to bail merely on th numerical strength of affidavits. It will be open to the trial Court to conside the plea of alibi and to give its benefit to the the petitioner at the proper time. A The case referred to above is distinguishable from the present one, becaus in the present case the fatal shot had been specifically attributed to th petitioner. The deceased had only one injury and though there are other points which go against the petitioner, nevertheless I would not like to make any observation beyond that. So far as the last contention is concerned that hardly deserves to be considered seriously. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(1) 1975 SCM R 151