IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 958 of 2018

Mudasir Ali Khan………………...………………...…………………..Applicant

Versus

The State…………………………….……………..……………….Respondent

Date of hearing : 30.08.2018

Mr. Tariq Mahmood, advocate for the Applicant.

Mr. Abrar Ali Khichi, DPG for State.

O R D E R

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: By filing instant bail application, the above named applicant seeks his release on bail during pendency of trial in a criminal case registered against him by lodging FIR No. 149/2012 at PS Sir Syed, Karachi under Section 302, 109 PPC.

I have heard the arguments advanced and gone through the record and citations placed before me. From whatever argued and relied upon before me, I have observed as under :-

a) The allegations as per FIR are that the complainant has stated that on the day of incident i.e., 31.03.2012, he was present at his home when he received information on phone that his brother Janan Khan had received injuries last night while he was driving his vehicle and at that time he was in hospital. The complainant reached hospital from where he came to know that his brother expired and his dead body was available in Edhi Cold Storage, Sohrab Goth. Dead body was handed over to the complainant who lodged the FIR against unknown person(s).

b) The applicant was involved on the basis of statement of an alleged eyewitness namely Ashfaq. It is pertinent to mention that in the first phase of investigation, the said witness has not come forward to record his statement.

c) The statement of aforesaid eyewitness was recorded under Section 161 CrPC and his statement was not recorded under Section 164 CrPC before concerned Magistrate.

d) Although it claimed that eyewitness Ashfaq had seen the applicant at the time of offence but no identification parade was held.

e) Presently, only official witnesses have been examined while rest of the witnesses have not been examined as they are not appearing before trial Court.

f) It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that for appearance of remaining witnesses, trial Court has issued bailable warrant but even then they did not appear.

g) In the instant case, the applicant was arrested on 25.04.2016 and since then he is in jail, and trial has not been concluded, as such his case falls under hardship and statutory delay.

In view of above observations, it is my tentative opinion that it cannot be said that the case against the applicant is not free from doubt and further probe, as such, instant bail application was granted and the applicant was admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with PR bond in the like amount to the entire satisfaction of trial Court vide my short order dated 30.08.2018 and the above are the reasons of the said short order.

However, if the applicant misuses the concession of bail or fails to appear before trial Court, then trial Court is empowered to take every action against the applicant as well as surety including cancellation of bail without making reference to this Court.

I would like to make it clear that above observations are tentative in nature and have been made only for deciding instant bail application and same would have no effect or impact upon the case of either party during trial.

J U D G E