IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

AT KARACHI

 

 

Criminal Bail Application S-605 of 2021

 

Allah Rakhio Bhatti

vs.

The State

 

 

For the Applicant / Accused       :         Mr. Rafique Ahmed K. Abro       Advocate

 

                                                         

For the Prosecution / State        :         Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo

                                                          Deputy Prosecutor General

                                                         

Date of hearing                         :         17.02.2022

 

Date of announcement              :         17.02.2022

 

ORDER

 

Agha Faisal, J.     The applicant seeks post-arrest bail, in respect of F.I.R. No.51/2021, registered on 26.06.2021, before P.S. Rehmatpur Larkana, pertaining to alleged offence/s under Section/s 302, 311 P.P.C.

 

2.            Learned counsel submits that the earlier pleas for bail by the applicant were rejected by the Court of the I-Additional Session Judge (MCTC), Larkana, in Cr. Bail Application No.1159 of 2021, and in 2nd Cr. Bail Application No. Nil of 2021 respectively, hence, the present proceedings.

 

3.            After considering the submissions of the learned counsel and sifting[1] through the material placed before the court, for and against the applicant, reproduction whereof is eschewed herein[2], it is observed as follows:

 

a.    It is the case of the applicant that himself and his family were attacked and in the process his wife, along with one of the assailants, died and he was seriously injured, however, the police foisted culpability upon him instead.

 

b.    Learned counsel for the applicant pleaded entitlement to the concession of bail on the premise inter alia that the prosecution story is concocted to implicate the accused and to protect the actual perpetrators; there is no witness to the alleged incident per the prosecution itself; there is no explanation as to how the police obtained information of the incident; even though the police claimed to have arrived on the scene and the place was mobbed, not a single statement had been taken from any of them; there are two versions of the alleged incident, as per the statement under section 161 of the accused, registered on the orders of the Honourable High Court; the heinous act was perpetrated by certain named individuals one of whom is also deceased; the version of the accused is also supported by the statement/application to the S.S.P dated 11.08.2021 (post the incident) submitted by the mother of one of the victims (deceased wife of the applicant); the alleged knife, even though the FSL report merely records the presence of human blood, yis said to have been recovered on 26.06.2021, sent to the FSL on 29.06.2021 and received by the concerned laboratory on 13.07.2021; the medical report of the accused supports his version as he had suffered serious injuries at the hands of the alleged assailants.   

 

c.    The learned Deputy Prosecutor General opposes the grant of bail on the grounds that the accused had been nominated in the F.I.R; mentioned in 161 statements of the P.Ws (being only the police officers); there is no enmity between the police and the accused; and recovery of a knife.

 

d.    It is admitted that there is no eye witness to the crime and that the police arrived on its own accord, prior to the matter having been reported thereto. Upon query as how the police found out, it was submitted that it was through spy information, however, the name and / or particulars of the spy have not been shares with the prosecution or this court. The complainant is the police itself and it is manifest that the family of neither deceased has reported the accused for the offence. On the contrary the mother of one deceased (the accused's wife) has been demonstrated to be going from pillar to post in defense of the applicant. The custody of the alleged murder weapon has also been questioned, as stated supra. The medical report of the applicant himself appears to support the version of the applicant.

 

e.    Upon tentative[3] assessment of the material[4] collected by the prosecution, for and against the applicant, it is manifest that the case, pertaining to the involvement of the applicant / accused in commission of the alleged offence, merits further enquiry[5], hence, demonstrably qualifying the present matter within the remit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court has maintained that in matters requiring further enquiry, grant of bail is the rule rather than the exception[6].

 

f.     It is also observed that the present case does not fall within the ambit of exceptions[7] illumined in the Tariq Bashir case[8]. The material placed before the Court does not indicate any criminal record of the applicant, in cases of an identical nature or otherwise; no argument has been articulated requiring the applicant’s presence for further investigation at this stage or denoting him as a flight risk; no apprehension has been expressed with regard to tampering of evidence by the applicant or repeating the offence/s, if enlarged on bail; hence, no cause is apparent presently warranting the continued incarceration of the applicant pendente lite.

 

4.            Therefore, it is the assessment of this Court that the learned counsel for the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of post arrest bail, hence, the applicant is hereby admitted to bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Hundred Thousands only) and a personal recognizance bond, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

 

5.            It is considered pertinent to record that the observations herein are of tentative nature and shall not influence and / or prejudice the case of either party at trial.

 

 

JUDGE


[1] Shoaib Mahmood Butt vs. Iftikhar Ul Haq & Others reported as 1996 SCMR 1845.

[2] Chairman NAB vs. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif & Others reported as PLD 2019 Supreme Court 445; Muhammad Shakeel vs. The State & Others reported as PLD 2014 Supreme Court 458.

[3] Shahzaman vs. The State reported as PLD 1994 Supreme Court 65.

[4] Asif Ayub vs. The State reported as 2010 SCMR 1735.

[5] Awal Khan & Others vs. The State reported as 2017 SCMR 538.

[6] Muhammad Shafi vs. The State reported as 2016 SCMR 1593; Nisar Ahmed vs. The State reported as 2014 SCMR 27.

[7] Zafar Iqbal vs. Muhammad Anwar & Others reported as 2009 SCMR 1488; Subhan Khan vs. The State reported as 2002 SCMR 1797.

[8] Tariq Bashir & Others vs. The State reported as PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34.