1. ' Applicants named above have sought bail in a case pending trial in the Court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana for an offence punishable under sections 302 and 148/149/114/109, P.P.C.
2. ' Case of prosecution as per F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Haji Huda, is that on 18-10-2002 the complainant, his son Tajal, maternal nephew Muneer and Abdul Nabi set out in the morning for hunting birds at Drigh Lake. Complainant was carrying his licensed gun. At 11-00 a.m. Near Younsif Buledi's lake they were attacked by Salik, Piral, Ali Dost, Gulzar and Haji Gul all armed with guns. At the instigation of Haji Gul, the accused persons fired from their guns at Tajal which hit him and he fell down in the water of the lake. Scared by the fire-arms carried by the accused persons, the complainant party could not interfere. The assailants then decamped. Tajal died on the spot.
3. Leaving the P.Ws. To guard the dead body, the complainant went to his cousin Bangui. Khan, but the latter was out of the station and he waited for him for a while, but, thereafter, at 8-00 p.m. He appeared at Police Station Drigh and lodged the F.I.R.
4. 'I have heard Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro, learned counsel for applicant Shah Muhammad alias Shahoo. Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro, learned counsel for the applicants Piral and others and Mr. Syed Mehboob Ali shah, learned counsel for the State.
5. ' Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro contended that applicant Shah Muhammad alias Shahoo was not nominated in the F.I.R. But in a supplementary statement, recorded after 8 days of the occurrence i,e, on 26-10-2002, the complainant came out with a modified version that the 5th accused was not Salik as mentioned by him in his F.I.R., but he was Shah Muhammad alias Shahoo, the applicant, the guilt of applicant, therefore, calls for further enquiry. Similarly, name of Qadan was mentioned in the F.I.R. But his name was deleted in the further statement of complainant and because of that police let him off. He further argued that the statements of P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. Were recorded after a considerable delay of 8 days and in those statements, the witnesses did not support the F.I.R. As far the role of Salik and Qadan was concerned. He relied upon the case of Shehzado v. The State (PLD 2002 Karachi 402), Farrakh Shahzad alias Pappi v. The State (2002 PCr.LJ 1875) and Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah v. The State (1993 SCMR 550). He also sought support from the latest authority Tahir Abbas v. The State (2003 SCMR 426), in support of his contentions.
6. ' Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro submitted that the further statement of complainant and the statements of witnesses under section 164, Cr.P.C. Show that there was improvement and different versions were given by P.Ws. As against the contents of F.I.R. Further according to him, it was not clear in the F.I.R. As to who caused fatal shot, but subsequently in the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. a development was made by assigning specific role to three accused persons. Besides, two persons were let off during investigation which also created doubt. He relied on the case of Mushtaq v. The State (1997 PCr.LJ 1319), Mian Ghulam Rasool Bodla v. Deputy Commissioner Bahawalpur (1999 SCMR 1307), Ghulam Mustafa alias Sathi v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 2053) and Shehzado v. The State (PLD 2002 Karachi 402), in support of his contentions.
7. ' Mr. Syed Mehboob Ali Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail and submitted that names of the applicants Piral and others are mentioned in the F.I.R. And specific role has been assigned to them by the witnesses in their statements under section 164, Cr.P.C., applicant Shahoo has also been nominated in the supplementary statement as also in statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. As such it would be premature to accept the bail plea at this stage. He relied on the case of Razzak Ahmed v. The State (2002 SCMR 1876), Mst. Parveen Akhtar v.
8. The State (2002 SCMR 1886) and Muhammad Waseem Nawaz alias Chhina Loola v. The State (2002 SCMR 1279), in this regard.
9. 'I have considered all these contentions carefully and perused the material available on record.
10. ' Admittedly the contents of F.I.R. And the supplementary statement of complainant recorded afterwards on 26-10-2002 or at variance insofar as the identity of some of the accused persons is concerned. In his further statement the complainant has stated that because of annoyance he at the time of the incident falsely nominated some persons as the culprits. On plain reading of further statement it appears that he dropped the main accused Salik although in his F.I.R. He alleged that all the accused (including Salik) fired from their guns at his son. In the F.I.R. He had also named Qadan to have conspired in the commission of the offence but in his further statement he did not mention him. In this context it is surprising to note that the complainant added the name of a new assailant namely Shah Muhammad alias Shahoo one of the applicants. In this way, he has not only modified his own version but demonstrated his act of false implication of Salik and Qadan in the earlier F . I . R.
11. ' Another significant aspect of the case to be noted is that the statements of the P.Ws. Were recorded long after eight days. There is no plausible explanation for this. The witnesses have also given a version different from that given in the F.I.R. They have tried to be selective in giving role to different accused persons. However, in view of the modified and inconsistent version given in the F.I.R. Viewed in the background of the delay in recording of the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., I have reached at the irresistible conclusion that this is a case which certainly requires further enquiry about the guilt of the applicants. As regards the case-law cited by learned State counsel it may be mentioned that in Muhammad Wasim's case (2002 SCMR 1279) bail plea was being urged on the ground that he had been declared innocent but on behalf of the State it was contended that in one of the investigations he was found guilty and the record showed that he was a desperate criminal and there were series of murder between the parties. The facts of the case are quite obviously different as far the instant case is concerned. In Razak Ahmed's case (2002 SCMR 1876) only the name of the unidentified assailants was given in the supplementary statement but in the instant case the complainant in his further statement has admitted that he falsely implicated Salik. He also came out with an improvement by adding new assailants and dropping the name of the person against whom there was allegation of conspiracy. Similarly, there was overwhelming evidence in Parveen Akhart's case (2002 SCMR 1886) but in the present case the modification in the version given by the complainant the delay in recording of statements of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. Whose names were very much mentioned in the F.I.R. Are the distinguishing features.
12. ' On the whole, in view of the circumstances discussed above the bail application is accepted and both the applications are allowed. The applicants be released on furnishing one surety each in the sum of Rs,800,000 each and executing P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.