1. ' Applicant Muhammad Nawaz has been arrested in a case registered at Police Station Thul for an offence punishable Under sections 302/460/337-H(ii)/34, P . P.0 .
2. ' F.I.R. In this case was lodged by Mir Muhammad on 6-11-2002 stating therein that on the previous night he was sleeping in his house alongwith his family members including his brother Illahi Bux (deceased) cousins Allah Dino and Muhammad Nawaz, when all of a sudden they woke up on cries of Illahi Bux. He stated in clear terms that on the electric light, he saw the faces of culprits, but could not identify them. According to complainant, one of the culprits was armed with Klashnikov, the second with gun and other two with hatchets. Illahi Bux grappled with culprit who was armed with gun, on which the man armed with Klashnikov fired at him, which hit him. He fell down and died. In the morning he lodged F.I.R. At 9-00 a.m.
3. ' The matter remained undetected for quite some time and statement of one Nek Muhammad recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Shows that in the meantime sniffer/detective dogs were used by investigating agency on the basis of which he was involved, but the matter was resolved and he was found innocent. However, subsequently on 14-9-2003 supplementary statement of complainant was recorded, wherein he came out with a new story alleging that the culprits were Muhammad Nawaz armed with Klashnikov, Allah Dino armed with gun, Mehboob and Ghulam Nabi armed with hatchets and that it was declared that Illahi Bux was Karo. It was further alleged that Muhammad Nawaz fired at Illahi Bux. A new set of witnesses was also introduced who gave statements almost on the same lines. The applicant was arrested on 19-9-2003.
4. ' I have heard Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razak Soomro, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Kourejo, learned counsel for State and Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, learned counsel for complainant.
5. ' It is mainly contended by learned counsel for applicant that this is a case of. Two versions and the F.I.R. Discloses altogether a different story from what has been stated in the supplementary statement of complainant, which was recorded after about 10 months. Relying on Tahir Abbas v.
6. State 2003 SCMR 426, Muhammad Javed v. State 1995 SCMR 1178 and Shahzado v. State PLD 2002 Karachi 402, he submitted that the case requires further inquiry in view of two conflicting versions.
7. He further pointed out that even during investigation no blood was secured from the place of incident nor any empty. According to him, no recovery has been made from the applicant. Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, learned counsel for complainant contended that in the supplementary statement the complainant has implicated the applicant and version of the complainant is supported by two witnesses Hadi Bux and Ali Gohar. He relied on Zahid Shah v. State 2001 PCr.LJ 134 and Dildar v. State 2002 PCr.LJ 1640 in support of his contentions and submitted that the applicant can be convicted on the basis of afore-mentioned evidence. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Kourejo, learned State Counsel submitted that in view of the varying versions, the case certainly calls for further inquiry, as to the guilt of the present applicant.
8. ' I have perused the material in the light of aforesaid contentions and the case-law. The story given in the F.I.R. Lodged within few hours of the occurrence is clear, the applicant has been shown as witness as he was sleeping in the house when the incident took place. The statement of Muhammad Nawaz was also recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., but after 10 months a new version, altogether different, was given by the complainant was introduced. In these circumstances, absence of blood and empties at the place of incident calls for further inquiry. Besides the two versions being totally different, the rule laid down in the aforesaid authorities cited by the learned counsel for applicant also lends support to the bail plea. The learned State counsel has rightly conceded to the grant of bail in these circumstances. The facts and circumstances of the case cited by Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio relate to totally different situations. Indeed, the law laid down in the Supreme Court authorities is applicable and sufficient for grant of bail in the instant case, on the ground of two inconsistent versions of the prosecution story.
9. ' Consequently, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs, Three lacs and executing P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.