MUHAMMAD YOUSUF and another vs THE STATE

ORDER

1. ' KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.---Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 23-10-2007 one Mst.

2. Chaman Naz wife of Muhammad Javed, lodged F.I.R. No,307/2007, under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station, Jamshed Quarters, Karachi. The contents of the F.I.R. Are reproduced as under:--- "Reference to the report of daily, I, S.-I. Akhtar Aziz came back after inquiry of the above said report and recorded the statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. The same is reproduced as under. The statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. Dated 23-10-2007 of Mst. Chaman Naz wife of Muhammad Javed, resident of House No,206/C. Rehman Square, Block 13/D, Near Essa Nagar, Gulshane-Iqbal, aged 26 years, stated therein that I reside at the above said address along with my husband and a son Junaid aged 11 years. I am a housewife. My husband runs shared business. On 22-10-2007 at about 1-30 p.m., my husband brought my son Junaid from School and left him at ground floor of the flat and then, inquired from me on phone as to whether Junaid has reached at home. I replied that he had reached. Thereafter he told me that he was going to meet his brother Muhammad Ali at Central Jail, Old Sabzi Mandi. At about 2-30 p.m. My husband Javed phoned me and informed me that when he was going inside the gate of the jail, Muhammad Ali, Yousaf and Akbar were chasing him on motorcycle and a car. At the time when he was coming out from the jail, they were standing outside the main gate of the jail. He said, "You don't worry" I will come home early. My husband often told me regarding the above said three persons that they were enemies of his life and they wanted to kill him. In this respect, my husband moved applications to high police officials and lodged F.I.R., against them. The copies of the same will be produced later on. At about 4-30 p.m. I, received phone call of some unknown person who informed me that I should come at Liaquat National Hospital, as my husband received bullet injuries. I immediately rushed to Liaquat National Hospital in a rickshaw and informed my sister and other relatives about the incident on phone. On reaching at emergency ward of Liaquat National Hospital, I saw my husband had already expired. My other relatives were also reached there. Through them, I came to know that at about 4-00 p.m. My husband came out from Central Jail in his Car No, ADJ 028, maker Cultus and was going towards Teen Hatti, when he reached at Jail Road, Near Floor Aluminum Glass shop,

(1) Muhammad Ali son of Ibrahim,

(2) Muhammad Yousaf son of Ibrahim and 3) Akbar son of Ibrahim, who were in a car and a motorcycle fired on my husband with fire armed weapon and killed him due to unknown grudge, now I am giving statement. My complaint is against above said three persons who killed my husband due to unknown grudge. This is my statement."

3. ' Police has registered the case and applicants are apprehending their arrest. They have approached this Court and were granted interim bail by this Court by order dated 22-1-2008. The learned counsel Mr. Mahmood Qureshi, has stated that there is enmity between the parties and the name of applicants have been mentioned malafidely in the F.I.R. On account of enmity. Name of eye-witnesses are not mentioned in the F.I.R. He further stated that applicant Muhammad Ali, is an officer in Building Control Authority while applicant Muhammad Yousaf, is dealing in property business. They are elderly persons and have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. He states that applicant Muhammad Ali is chronic heart patient. The main accused identified by the eyewitnesses has already been granted bail by the trial Court.

4. ' Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Khan, State Counsel has strongly opposed this bail application who stated that sufficient evidence is available on record to connect the applicants with the offence. Learned counsel for the complainant supports the contention of learned State Counsel.

5. Since the main accused has already been granted bail by the trial Court, enmity exists between the parties and possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. They are on interim bail since January, 2008 and are regularly attending the trial Court and facing the trial and they have not misused the liberty of bail. In the circumstances , I confirm their interim bail on terms and conditions mentioned in the interim order.