IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT
LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 502 of 2022.
Applicant: Qadir Bux, through Mr., Advocate, who is called absent.
Respondent: The State, through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.
Date of hearing: 27.10.2022.
Date of order: 27.10.2022.
O R D E R
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J. This order would dispose of captioned bail application filed on behalf of applicant Ghulam Muhammad Golo, in crime No.12/2022 with P.S Gublo Katcho, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 311 and 34 P.P.C.
None present for the applicant; no intimation is received. As such, the learned D.P.G. has been heard.
From perusal of the record it appears that name of the applicant is appearing in the F.I.R with specific role that he alongwith co-accused Nazir Ahmed Golo committed the offence of murdering an innocent lady, namely, Mst. Dadli, aged about only 20/21 years under the allegation of “Siyah-Kari”. The alleged offence committed by the applicant, prima facie, falls within the preview of section 311, P.P.C., which having not been mentioned in the table as contained in section 345 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and is not compoundable in nature.
The learned trial Court while declining the bail plea of the applicant has observed that, the prosecution witnesses have fully implicated applicant in commission of alleged offence in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Muhammad Akram Khan V. The State (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 96), while dealing with similar case involving honor killing observed that “legally and morally speaking, nobody has any right nor can anybody be allowed to take law in his own hands to take the life of anybody in the name of “Ghairat”. Neither the law of the land nor religion permits so-called honour killing which amounts to murder (Qatl-i-Amd) simpliciter. Such iniquitous and vile act is violative of fundamental right as enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution of Islamic of Pakistan which provides that no person would be deprived of life or liberty except in accordance with law and any custom or usage in that respect is void under Article 8(1) of the Constitution.
In like case of commission of double-murder on pretext of “Siyahkari”, reported PLD 2012 Balochistan 179 (Khadim Hussain and others V. The State), it was held that “a tentative perusal of the record shows that the applicants are involved in the commission of murder of two innocent persons on the pretext of ‘Siyahkari’ while taking law of the land in their own hands, thus, at this stage, they invoke no sympathy and do not qualify for the grant of relief by the Court. The alleged offence committed by the applicants, prima facie, falls within the preview of section 311, P.P.C., which having not been mentioned in the table, as contained in section 345 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and is not compoundable in nature. I am of the considered view that brutal murders of innocent girls on the pretext of ‘siyahkri’ are mainly against the State and society and not against an individual. Moreover, the offences cannot be compounded automatically by the legal heirs, but it is always through the Court and the Court can decline the permission to compromise the offence by the legal heirs of victim(s), keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case.”
In case of Amir Bux Machi V. The State (2013 YLR 2190), this Court refused bail to accused involved in similar case, while observing that “it was manifest from the record that applicant’s name with specific role transpires in F.I.R; it was alleged that applicant with gunshot injury caused murder of his daughter deceased Mst. Khalida on the pretext of Karo-Kari (honour killing); blood-stained earth was recovered; though eye-witnesses are police officials, yet their such status is not sufficient to consider their version with doubt, specially, there is no ill-will of said witnesses against the applicant, where they have categorically supported the version of F.I.R. The perusal of available material prima facie links the applicant/ accused with commission of offence involving in case of capital punishment, therefore, suffice to say applicant has failed to bring the case, within subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and it is authoritative proposition of law that an accused, charged with offence of capital punishment is not entitled to be released on bail unless he succeeds in bringing his case within the meaning of further inquiry”.
In view of the dicta referred to above, the captioned bail application is hereby dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the case and conclude the same preferably within six months.
Judge
Ansari