SULTAN Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J. ‑‑‑ Facts leading to the present application for bail are that the accused Muhammad Khan is facing trial in Special Case No.160 of 2000 before Special Judge (S.T.A.), Khairpur under sections 302, 147 and 148, P.P.C. It arose out of F.I.R. No.9 of 2000 of Police Station Guloo Sial.

2. The facts leading to the present bail application as disclosed by complainant Abdul Rehman are that Ghulamullah was his younger brother. One day prior to the lodging of F.I.R. two guests of Bhelar Community came to his younger brother Ghulamullah and took him alongwith them. His brother Gulamullah did not return back for the night. During night time, the complainant heard fire shots towards village Piyaroya‑Ji‑Wandh. Early in the morning he alongwith Ghulam Akbar and Haji Khan Narejo went to the village Piyaroya‑Ji‑Wandh On their way to that village, when they reached near the land of Ali Muhammad Narejo they saw a person tied by a cloth with Babul tree. They went near him and saw that it was dead body of Ghulamullah brother of the complainant. He had fire‑arm injuries on his person. They saw foot‑prints of some person at the site. The foot‑prints were tracked which were lost at some distance. The complainant left Ghulam Akbar over the dead body and he proceeded to police station for lodging the report.

3. The police after recording the F.I.R. started investigation and arrested the present applicant on 16‑10‑2000. After completing the investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court of Special Judge, S.T.A., Khairpur.

4. The applicant/accused applied for bail before the trial Court but his bail plea was dismissed by impugned order, dated 25‑1‑2001.

5. We have heard Mr. Wali Dino A. Narejo, learned counsel on behalf of applicant/accused and Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar, learned A.A. ‑G. for the State. The latter concedes to the bail plea of the applicant/accused.

6. The perusal of material placed on record shows that name of the applicant/accused does not appear in the F.I.R. Not a single witness has implicated him in the commission of offence. The alleged incident occurred on 26‑7‑2000. The applicant/accused was arrested on 16‑10‑2000. The only allegation against him is that he during the course of investigation led the police party and produced the rifle on 23‑10‑2000. In their further statements dated 11‑8‑2000 complainant and prosecution witnesses have stated before the police that they came to know that applicant/accused might have committed the offence but no source of information has been disclosed.

7. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that case necessitates further enquiry as contemplated by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. as there appear no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty of the offence covered by prohibitory clause.

8. Consequently the applicant/accused is granted bail in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 and P.R. Bond .in the‑ like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

9. H.B.T./M‑153/K Bail granted.