ORDER
SHEET
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Bail
Application No.S-817 of 2021
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
Applicants: Noor Ahmed and
another, through
Mr.
Jamshed Ahmed Faiz, Advocate
Complainant: Ghulam Qadir,
through
Mr.
Ubedullah Ghoto, Advocate
State: Through
Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi,
Additional
Prosecutor General
Date of
hearing: 28.03.2022
Dated of
order: 28.03.2022
O R D E R
Zulfiqar
Ali Sangi, J: Applicants/accused Noor Ahmed and Naeem both sons of Dhani Bux Sial, are
seeking their pre-arrest bail in FIR No.143/2021, registered at Police Station Mirpur
Mathelo, District Ghotki, under sections 302, 201, 148 and 149 PPC. Their same
plea was earlier declined by learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge Mirpur
Mathelo, vide order dated 16.12.2021.
2. Briefly
the facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Ghulam Qadir lodged FIR
at Police Station Mirpur Mathelo on 18.08.2021 at 1100 hours stating therein
that Muhammad Hassan aged about 30 years was his younger brother who had
friendship with Faheem Sial. On 12.08.2021 at about 4.00 p.m said Faheem Sial
came to his house and told his brother Muhammad Hassan that one plot in low
price is available as such his brother while taking amount of Rs.300,000/- went
with Faheem Sial to Mirpur Mathelo on his Motorcycle but did not return back while
his mobile was going off. Thereafter complainant and witnesses Ghulam Hyder,
Ghulam Muhammad and Barkat Ali went to the house of Faheem Sial to enquire from
him the whereabouts of his brother but he did not meet with them. Thereafter
complainant kept on searching his brother and on 15.08.2021 afternoon
complainant along with above named witnesses went to village Qaloo Sial near
Otaq of accused where they saw that each accused Noor Ahmed, Faheem, Naeem and
three unidentified persons were carrying one dead body who seeing the
complainant party escaped away leaving there the dead body. Thereafter
complainant saw that same was the dead body of his brother whose hands were
tied with rope, right wrist was fractured and fingers of both foots were cut.
Complainant informed police, police came there took the dead body to civil
hospital Mirpur Matheleo and on the next day after postmortem the dead body was
burred. Thereafter complainant lodged the FIR.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that there is delay of about 6
days in lodging of FIR which has not been explained. He next contended that it
is unseen incident and applicants have falsely been implicated by the
complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motive. He also contended that
the medical evidence is in contradiction with the ocular account. He further
contended that no active role has been assigned to the present applicants and during investigation the applicants have been
declared innocent by the I.O and their names were kept in column-II of the
challan, however learned Magistrate did not agree
with the police report and had taken cognizance of the offence. Lastly he
submits that in these circumstances the case of
applicants comes within the ambit of further enquiry and they are entitled for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail already granted
to them.
4. Learned
APG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has, opposed the confirmation
of pre-arrest bail on the ground that the applicants are nominated in the FIR, who
are involved in a heinous offence which carries capital punishment.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record with their able assistance.
6. Admittedly
there is delay of six days in registration of FIR which has not been properly
explained. The conduct of the complainant is doubtful as neither he kept any
entry at concerned Police Station in respect of missing of his brother from
12.08.2021 till dead body was thrown by the accused on 15.08.2021. The
complainant has also not lodged any report on 15.08.2021 which suggests that
the FIR was registered with consultation and deliberation and makes the case of
prosecution as doubtful.
7. Record reflects that nobody has seen the accused
persons while committing the murder of deceased, there is no evidence in
respect of the detention of deceased in the custody of accused persons which
too makes the case one of further inquiry.
8. The complainant in FIR stated that accused persons
thrown the dead body on 15.08.2021 and on the next day after conducting
postmortem same was buried. On the other hand record reflects that the dead
body was referred for postmortem on 16.08.2021 while the postmortem was
conducted on 17.08.2021 which
reflects that either the complainant is telling lie or the
postmortem report is managed. Even otherwise the applicability of section 302
PPC against the applicants is yet to be determined at the trial after recording
evidence. Further it is also matter of
record that during investigation the applicants have been declared innocent by
the I.O and their names were kept in column-II of the challan, however learned Magistrate did not agree with the police
report and had taken cognizance of the offence.
It is settled principal of law that deeper appreciation of the
evidence is not permissible while deciding the bail plea of the accused and the
same is to be decided tentatively on the basis of material available on the
record.
9. From tentative assessment of the
material as has been discussed above, I am of the opinion that the
applicants have made out case for confirmation of bail. Accordingly, instant
bail application is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to
the applicants vide order dated 20.12.2021 is hereby confirmed on the same
terms and conditions.
10.
The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose
of deciding the instant bail application, 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
Suleman Khan/PA