ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

 

Criminal Bail Application No. 1620 of 2016

 

Applicants:                            1. Muhammad Danish s/o.  Muhammad Bashir

                                                                       

                                                2. Nafis Ahmed Khan s/o. Shabbir Ahmed Khan.

 

                                                Through Mr. Agha Zafar Ali, Advocate.

 

Respondent:                          The State, through Mr. Abdullah Rajput alongwith

                                                SIP Zahid Jadoon PS PIB Colony.  

 

Complainant:                        Roshan Ara w/o Ghulam Muhammad 

                                                (nemo)

-----------------

Date of hearing:                    09.02.2017

Date of order:                        09.02.2017

-----------------

 

O R D E R

 

Zafar Ahmed Rajput, J:-     After rejection of their earlier application for grant of pre-arrest bail bearing No. 156 of 2015 by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, vide order dated 26.03.2016, the applicant/accused Muhammad Danish s/o. Muhammad Bashir and Nafis Ahmed Khan s/o. Shabbir Ahmed Khan, through instant criminal bail application, have sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 164 of 2013, registered at PS PIB Colony, Karachi under Section 302/34 P.P.C. They were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 10.11.2016, now they seek confirmation of interim bail.

 

2.         As per the F.I.R., on 23.08.2013 the son of the complainant, namely Ghulam Sabir alias Papoo Pathan was murdered with fire arm shots at opposite Sajid Parchon Shop near House No. LB-52, Liaquat Basti, Old Sabzi Mandi, Karachi by four unknown persons.

 

3.         The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case; that there is no evidence against the applicants and as per prosecution they have been implicated in this case on the basis of statement of co-accused Muhammad Saleem, who was arrested by the Rangers and after keeping him with them for 90 days under Section 11 EEEE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, he was subsequently handed over to police intimating that he had disclosed that the present applicants/accused were also involved in the murder of deceased Ghulam Sabir alias Papoo Pathan but no such statement of said co-accused is available with the prosecution, even the extra-judicial confessional statement of co-accused before  Rangers officials is not admissible under Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; that the applicants/accused were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 10.11.2016 and since then they are attending the trial Court regularly; as such, they are entitled for confirmation of their bail.

 

4.         On the other hand, learned APG has opposed this application on the ground that the applicants/accused are involved in a heinous offence of murder of an innocent person. The learned APG; however, has admitted that the statement of co-accused Muhammad Saleem is not available in case file of the prosecution.

 

5.         I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

 

6.         There is no denial that the alleged murder of deceased Ghulam Sabir alias Papoo Pathan was blind and there is no direct evidence against the applicants/accused and as per prosecution case they have been implicated in this case on the basis of statement of co-accused Muhammad Saleem allegedly made before the Rangers officials; however, such statement is not available in the case file of prosecution. The alleged extra-judicial confession of co-accused made before Rangers, if any, is not admissible under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Under the circumstances, the case of applicant/ accused falls within the ambit of further inquiry as envisaged in sub-section (2) of section 497, Cr. P.C. The applicants/accused were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail and they are attending the trial Court regularly and admittedly they have not misused the concession of interim bail. Hence, the interim bail granted to the applicants/accused vide order dated 10.11.2016 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. 

 

JUDGE

Athar Zai