KHALID Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. The applicant is facing trial under section 302, P.P.C. on the allegation that he had caused knife injuries to deceased Muhammad Usman who ultimately died in the hospital. According to the F.I.R. there are two eye‑witnesses of the incident namely complainant Abdul Ghani, and his son Saleem. Both of them have filed affidavits exonerating the present applicant. They have further stated that they knew the present applicant and he was not the person who had caused injuries to the deceased. The complainant is real brother of the deceased while Muhammad Saleem is his nephew. It has been contended that of course there is evidence of dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased before police but in view of affidavits filed by the complainant and his son, it has become a case of further inquiry.

2. Mr. S. Sarfraz Ahmed learned AA.‑G. appearing for the State has conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant in view of the above circumstances.

3. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the F.I.R., order rejecting bail application, and the affidavits filed by complainant and his son. The complainant and his son Saleem are present in Court and they have admitted the contents of the affidavits. That the decision reported in P L D 1984 Kar. 223 and relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in that case the affidavits were sworn before the Oath Commissioner and not before the Court or before the 1st Class Magistrate. Moreover. the witnesses were also nor produced before the Court, and it was in that situation that the bail ,vas refused 6y his Lordship Abdul Hayee Kureshi, CJ (as he then was). The affidavits have been sworn in this Court. The complainant and his son have admitted the contents of affidavits before me, and therefore, while relying upon 1986 P Cr.L J page 433, 1 am of the considered view that in view of the above development the case of the applicant requires further inquiry.

4. I, therefore, direct that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) only and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

5. S.G.D./K‑98/K

6. Bail allowed.