DOST MUHAMMAD Versus STATE

ORDER

1. The applicant has been challaned under sections 302, 307, 324 and 34, P.P.C. on the report of complainant Akram. Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Khan co‑accused have been granted bail earlier. However, bail was refused to the applicant as specific role was assigned to him. The main ground for pressing this application is that the complainant, eye‑witnesses Mashirs and 2 witnesses from the reserve list were examined by the prosecution before the trial Court and all of them have not supported the prosecution. They have been declared hostile and were cross‑examined by the A.P.P. Therefore, according to the learned counsel there is no evidence on record to support the prosecution and except the Investigating Officer no other witness is to be examined.

2. Mr. Sarfraz the learned A.A.‑G. contended that in view of 1980 SCMR 203 bail cannot be granted as the trial has commenced and will conclude very soon. The authority cited by the learned A.A.‑G. is not relevant as in that case only the date for trial had been fixed and it was to commence soon. In the present case almost all the material witnesses have been examined, the eye‑witnesses and Mashirs have not supported the prosecution.

3. Mr. Qurban Ali Chohan, learned counsel for the applicant has I referred to Muhammad Hanif's case 1983 P Cr. L J 2380 and 1983 P Cr.LJI 2381. He has also referred to a unreported order in Cr.B.A. No. 170 of 1986 (Liaquat Ali v. The State) which supports the view that where all the eye witnesses and Mashirs do not support the prosecution the bail is granted. In the circumstances I grant the bail to the applicant on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.30,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

4. M.Y.H./D‑13/K Bail granted.