IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Bail Application No. S- 434of 2020
Applicants: Deedar Ali, Murad Ali and Baboo @ Gop,Through Mr.Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocate,
Complainant: Jan Muhammad Dahani, through Mr. Saeed Ahmed Bijarani, Advocate.
State: Through Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General.
Criminal Bail Application No.S- 437 of 2020
Applicants: Saifullah Dahani and Deedar Ali by caste Dahani, Through Mr.Ashfaque Hussain Abro, Advocate,
Complainant: Jan Muhammad Dahani, through Mr. Saeed Ahmed Bijarani, Advocate.
State: Through Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General.
Date of hearing: 16-11-2020
Date of order: 16-11-2020
O R D E R
Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J.- ApplicantsDeedar Ali, Murad Ali and Baboo @ Gop, in Cr.B.A.No.S-434/2020 and Applicants Saifullah Dahani and Deedar Ali by caste Dahaniin Cr.B.A No. S-437/2020, seektheir post arrest bailin F.I.R No.47/2020, registered at Police Station Ghouspur, for offenceunder sections 302 PPC.Since, in both the applications, the applicants are seeking their bail in the same FIR hence, by this single order I will disposed of these two bail applications.
2. The facts as per F.I.R registered by the complainant Jan Muhammad on 8.6.2020 are that on 6.6.2020, he along with other witnesses was present in their home and in the evening his son Asif Ali went from the house. On 7.6.2020 at about 6:00 am, he received information that dead body of his son Asif is lying at Katcha path going towards village Jam Nindav near the lands. They went to the pointed place and saw the dead body of his son. They took the dead body and went to police station for letter and after the postmortem and after completing funeral ceremony he went to police station and registered FIR against unknown persons.
3. After usual investigation police challaned the present applicants in this case.
4. Learned counsel for all the applicants submit that names of applicants does not transpire in the FIR.As per FIR there is no eye witness of the incident; that no role has been assigned to the applicants in the FIR so also in statement under section 161 Cr.P.C of witnesses Abdul Kabeer, Danglo, and in further statement of complainant which were recorded on 13.6.2020. However, the applicants were nominated by Muhammad Hassan and Muhammad Nawaz in their 161 Cr.PC statement recorded on 18.6.2020 but no identification parade was held. In support of his contentions he relied upon the case ofMuhammad Shahid v. The State (2011 SCMR 168)
5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General, has opposed the grant of bail and submitted that during investigation witnesses Muhammad Hassan and Muhammad Nawaz implicated the present applicants with specific role therefore, they are not entitle for the grant of bail.
6. Mr. Saeed Ahmed Bijarani, counsel for the complainant submitted that names of applicants transpire in 161 Cr.PC statements of two witnesses with specific role therefore, they are not entitle for grant of bail. He relied upon the case of Dost Muhammad v. The State (PLD 1997 Lahore 589), Khalil Ahmed v. The State (2000 P.Cr.LJ- 214), Muhammad Abdullah v. The State and another (2000 P.Cr.LJ- 446), Gul Bahar and another v. The State (2000 P.Cr.LJ- 1277) and Muhammad Arshad and another v. Muhammad Mushtaq and 5 others (2000 P.CrLJ- 167).
7. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
8. Admittedly,the names of applicants are not mentioned in the F.I.R which was recorded on 8.6.2020. On 13.6.2020, 161 Cr.PC statements of witnesses Abdul Kabeer and Danglo, was recorded so also further statement of complainantwas recorded in which they have not assigned any role to the present applicants, however; they stated that they came to know that murder of deceased was committed by these accused persons. They also did not disclose the source of such information, as to how they came to know that murder was committed by these accused persons. The witnesses were also examined under section 164 Cr.PC before the Magistrate on 17.6.2020, in which they have also not disclosed source of information norimplicated the applicants with specific role. The complainantand witnesses have not disclosed the names of Muhammad Hassan and Muhammad Nawaz in FIR so also in statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. Muhammad Hassan and Muhammad Nawaz were examined on 18.6.2020, after the arrestof accused Baboo @ Gop who was arrested on 12.6.2020. They were silent for about 11 days of the incident and as per their statements they identified the accused persons on the light of their motorcycle and torch, the said identification on the torch lightand light of the motorcycle in the odd hours of night is doubtful.
9. Complainant Jan Muhammad, P.Ws Abdul Kabeer and Danglo, are not eye witnesses of the incident and statements of Muhammad Hassan and Muhammad Nawaz also create some doubt which was recorded on 18.6.2020 after the arrest of the some applicants without plausible explanation.The case has been challaned and applicantsare no more required for investigation.There is nothing on record to show that the applicantsare previous convicts.
10. It is settled principle of law that while deciding the bail plea of accuseddeeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible and the material is to be assessed tentatively. From the tentative assessment of material available on record as discussed above, the applicants have been able to make out a case of further inquiry into their guilt. Resultantly,these applications are allowed and the applicants are granted post arrest bail subject to furnishing their solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs), each and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
11. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the instant bail applications, which shall not in any manner influence the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case.
J U D G E
Syd Ashfaq/-