IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No.D-175 of 2021.

Crl. Bail Application No.D-179 of 2021.

 

 

Date of hearing

               Order with signature of Judge

 

            For hearing of post arrest bail.

 

1.  For orders on office objection at Flag ‘A’.

2.  For hearing of Post Arrest Bail.

 

O R D E R.

19-04.2022.

 

                                M/sMohsin Ali Khan and Ali GulAbbassi Advocate for applicant in Cr.B.A No.D-179 of 2021.

                                      Mr.Habib-ur-RehmanShaikh, Advocate for applicant in Cr.B.A No. D-175 of 2021.

                                      Syed Jaffer Ali Shah, Advocate for complainant.

                                      Mr.Zulifqar Ali Jatoi, Additional Prosecutor General.

                                      -.-.-.-

 

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through the aforesaid bail applications, applicants/accused Syed SaqlainMuhib Shah and Zahid Hussain Rajput seek post-arrest bail in crime No. 271/2020, for offence under sections 302, 120-B, 297, 435, 148, 149 PPC& 7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at police stationShaheedMurtazaMirani, Khairpur. Before this, applicants/accused filed separate bail applications before the Court of learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur,  who has dismissed the same vide order dated 05.10.2021 respectively and the said order has been assailed before this Court.

2.      Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 20.11.2020 complainant Waseem Ahmed had lodged FIR at Police Station ShaheedMurtazaMirani alleging that ASI Junaid Bilal is his relative, from whom some time ago Sarfraz Rajput had borrowed rupees fiftylacs which was demanded but Sarfraz had kept on hopes. On 17.11.2020 complainant along with his relatives Muhammad Shareef, Imam Dino, and Ali Gohar boarded in Mehran Car and proceeded to their village, it was 1145 hours when they reached Bhurgiri bridge where saw the VIGO vehicle of Junaid Bilal Wassan which crossed them, which was stopped near an electric pole. The complainant party stopped their vehicle behind them. They saw on the headlight of the vehicle six persons alighted from said VIGO, they were identified to be 1. Sarfraz alias Faraz having cleaver in his hand 2. ZahidHussain had a TT pistol, 3. Syed Saqlain with cleaver along with three unidentified persons having Kalashnikovs overpowered the complainant party, it was 1200 hours.  It was further alleged in the FIR that accused Sarfraz gave hakal to Junaid Bilal that he will not spare him alive and will set his dead body on fire. Thereafter accused Sarfrazalias Faraz armed with a cleaver/butcher knife hit on the head, due to which ASI Junaid Bilal raised cries and fell and accused Saqlain Shah cut5 his both arms of ASI Junaid Bilal, then accused Sarfraz alias Faraz cut both legs of ASI Junaid Bilal. Then all three nominated accused along with one unknown associate threw amputated legs and arms into the vehicle and accused Sarfraz alias Faraz took out a gallon of petrol and sprinkled it upon him and the vehicle, while accused ZahidHussain sprinkled chemical. Thereafter accused Sarfraz alias Faraz and ZahidHussain took out matches and set on fire the vehicle which spread completely and the dead body of ASI Junaid Bilal Wassan got burnt to ash due to heavy fire, thereafter accused persons fled away. Complainant party informed their relatives and Shah Lateef Police, after some time police came atthe spot but as the dead body of ASI Junaid Bilal was not identifiable he was taken and sent to Civil Hospital for post mortem ultimately above FIR was lodged.

3.      It is, inter-alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicants/accused that applicants/accused are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case;that there is the delay of about three days in lodging of FIR without plausible explanation; that the case is of different versions of prosecution case i.e original version shown in media, secondly complainant’s version of FIR of the same incident, the third one is the report of JIT finding, constituted by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2020 submitted by IO which shows that element of fabrication & manipulation exist in this case; all the witnesses are close relatives of the complainant and there is no iota of evidence to connect the applicants with the alleged offence. Learned counsel for applicants/accused have relied upon the cases of Zakhim Khan Masood vs. The State (1998 SCMR 1065),  Abbass vs. The State (2000 SCMR 212), Firdous Paul vs. The State (2004 SCMR 15), Ehsanullah vs. The State (2012 SCMR 1137), Khawaja Anwar Majid v. National Accountability Bureau through Chairman NAB and another (P L D 2020 Supreme Court 635), Khair Muhammad and another vs. The State through P.G Punjab and another (2021 SCMR 130) and Anwar Shaheen and another vs. The State and another (2021 SCMR 1032).

4.      On the other, learned Additional P.G for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed for grant of bail on the ground thatnames of applicants/accused transpire in the FIR with specific allegations. The witnesses in their 161 Cr.P.C have supported the version of the complainant and there is sufficient material available on record to connect the applicants/accused with the offence.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record with their assistance.

6.      From the perusal of the record it reflects that the parties are known to each other. The names of both the applicants/accused transpire in the FIR with their specific roles. Applicant/accusedZahidHussainwas armed with a T.T pistol whereas accused Syed SaqlainMuhib Shah was having cleavers in his hands. They along with their companions were members of unlawful assembly in the prosecution of their common object committed rioting at Bhurgiri bridge and brutally committed Qatl-i-Amd of Junaid Bilal Wassan. Applicant Syed Saqlain Shah cut down both arms of deceased JunaidBilawal, whereas Sarfaraz alias Faraz Rajput cut down both legs from thigh with their cleaver and separated from his body, thereafter accused persons in furtherance of their common object with the help of one unidentified accused, took hands, legs and upper part/piece of the body of deceased Junaid Bilalput into the Vigo. Applicant/accused ZahidHussain took out the chemical bottle, poured the same upon deceased and also took out the matchboxes by co-accused Sarfraz alias Faraza and present applicant/accused ZahidHussain form their pockets and set on fire to vehicle of deceased, due to pouring of petrol and chemical the vehicle of deceased was set on fire in presence of complainant party with the result the dead body of deceased and his vehicle was fully burnt to ashes.

7.In the instant matter on the order of Inspector General of Police Sindh Karachi, the team under the chairmanship ofIrfan Ali Balouch, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Technical & Transport, Sindh Karachi investigatedthe murder incident of ASI Junaid Bilal Wassan and after thorough interrogation, the team reached to the conclusion that present both applicants/accused along with co-accused Sarfraz alias Faraza Rajput have committed brutal murder of ASI Junid Bilal Wassan and later on the team directed Investigating officer Inspector Zulifqar Ali Qureshi to submit challan against accused persons. 

8.The ocular evidence finds support from the medical evidence.P.Ws have fully supported the version of the complainant in their 161 Cr.P.C statements. It is a well-settled principle of law that atthe bail stage only a tentative assessment is to be made.It seems that the applicants/accused are involved in the heinous offence of brutal murder of one innocent person and their case scarily flaws within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Prima facie there is sufficient material available on record to connect the applicants to guilt as alleged. The reliance is placed on the case of Abu BakkarSiddique v. The State and others (2021 SCMR 5).

9.      In view of the above discussion, learned counsel for the applicants/accused havefailed to make out a good case for grant of bail in the light of subsection (2) of Section 497 CrPC, therefore, the applicants/accused are not entitled tothe concession of bail and same aredismissed accordingly. Learned counsel for applicants/accused pointed out that now the case is fixed for the charge,in such circumstances learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the matter and conclude the case preferably within 90 days after receipt of the order.The case laws submitted by learned counsel for applicants/accused are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.

10.    Needless, to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.

 

                                                                             Judge

                                                        Judge

Irfan/P.A