ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-741 of 2021

 

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

 

Applicant:                                  Ghulam Hyder, through

                                                  Mr. Qurban Ali Baloch, Advocate

 

Complainant:                             Ghous Bux, through

                                                  Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Korai, Advocte

 

State:                                         Through  Shafi Muhammad Mahar,

                                                  Deputy Prosecutor General

 

Date of hearing:                         10.01.2022

 

Dated of order:                           10.01.2022

                                                 

O R D E R

 

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J:  Applicant/accused Ghulam Hyder son of Ghulam Hussain Shaikh, is seeking his post-arrest bail in FIR No.06/2021, registered at Police Station Ubauro, under sections 302, 201, 34 PPC. Earlier his post-arrest bail plea was declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC Ubauro, vide order dated 17.09.2021. Hence, he approached this court for same relief.

2.                Briefly the facts of the prosecution are that on 09.012021 complainant Ghous Bux along with his maternal cousin Muhammad Iqbal Dahar and his brother-in-law Soomar Dahar came at Ubauro Town for work, who after finishing work went to the shop of complainant’s son Farman Ali where accused Ghulam Hyder Shaikh and two unidentified persons were sitting. On asking of complainant to shut down the shop and accompany them to house as it was late hours, his son Farman Ali replied that his guests are sitting as such he will come later, as such complainant and witnesses returned home but till morning his son did not return home. On 10.01.2021 complainant along with witnesses came at the shop of Farman Ali on motorcycle at 0600 hours where they saw and identified on the light of motorcycle accused Ghulam Hyder Shaikh and one unidentified person dragging Farman Ali from the shop and they putting him on motorcycle went away towards city side. They saw that Farman Ali was   in lifeless condition. They gave hakals to the accused persons and chased them on motorcycle. Thereafter within their sight the accused persons throwing Farman Ali at main road fled away. They found that collar bone of Farman Ali was broken and there was swelling on his neck and he has died. The complainant with the help of witnesses took the dead body of his son, got conducted the postmortem from taluka hospital Ubauro through police and after getting free from funeral lodged FIR on 16.01.2021 at 1600 hours against the present applicant and his two companion.

2.              Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that  there is inordinate delay of about six days in registration of FIR which has not been explained properly by the complainant. He next contended that no motive for committing murder of the deceased has been given by the complainant in the FIR. He also contended that even the deceased has not disclosed to complainant that there was any grudge between deceased and present applicant. He further contended that all the PWs are closed relatives of the complainant and identification of accused on the head light of the motorcycle is a weakest type of evidence and carries no weight and in these circumstances case of applicant requires further enquiry, therefore he be enlarged on bail.

3.              Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the applicant has been specifically nominated in the FIR and the offence falls within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C, therefore applicant is not entitled for concession of bail.

4.              Learned DPG also opposed the grant of bail on the ground that a human being lost his life in the incident as such applicant who is named in the FIR with specific role, does not deserve any concession of bail.

 

5.              I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their able assistance.

 

6.              Admittedly complainant party has not seen committing murder of the deceased by the applicant and there appears no motive for committing murder of son of complainant by applicant, besides  delay in lodging of FIR without plausible explanation gives support the version of applicant regarding his false implication after due consideration with ulterior motive. Further all the PWs are close relatives of the complainant and no independent person has been cited as witness or mashir from the locality though as per complainant the dead body was allegedly thrown by the accused on a road which is a public place so also the identification of the applicant on the head light of the motorcycle which is a weakest type of evidence, casts dent in the prosecution case. It is observed that complainant informed the police on 10.01.2021 that the dead body of his son is available at Telephone Exchange. Such entry No.14 at 6.45 hours was recorded by the police which too does not indicate about the name of applicant or about the happening of the incident and all these circumstances makes the case of applicant one of further enquiry. Further the case has been challaned and accused is no more required for further investigation. Resultantly, the applicant is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (rupees two lacs) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

7.              The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case.

 

 

 

                                                                           JUDGE

 

 

 Suleman Khan/PA