ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

1^st Cr. Bail Appln. No.S- 375   of   2023.  

Date of hearing                                Order with signature of Judge.

1.For orders on office objection.

2.For hearing of  bail application.

Applicant

(Muhammad Ramzan)    :   Through Mr.Inam-ur-Rehman Abro, Advocate 

Jafferi.                                   

The State                         :     Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro,  Addl. P.G.

Complainant                             :       Through Mr. Shakeel Ahmed G. Ansari, Advocate

(Sahiban Khatoon)             

Date of hearing            :       11.12.2023.

O R D E R.

            Through this application, applicant Muhammad Ramzan son of Ali Sher Jafferi seeks his release on post arrest bail in Crime No.02 of 2022 registered with P.S Khanpur, under Sections 302, 201, 148, 149, PPC. Such plea of the applicant has been turned down by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Shikarpur vide order dated 18.05.2023.

2.         After registration of case, the applicant was arrested and after completion of usual formalities challan against him was submitted, which is now pending trial before the Court of 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Shikarpur vide Sessions Case No.200/2023 re-State v. Rab Dino & others. 

3.         On 13.01.2022, complainant Mst. Sahiban lodged FIR at PS Khanpur, alleging that her daughter Muskan alias Mandam, who was married with present applicant Muhammad Ramzan about 4/5 years back, had been killed by her husband along with co-accused, named in the FIR, at unknown time and place and then the accused persons caused disappearance of evidence by concealing her dead body.

4.         Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged incident is unseen and unwitnessed. He further submits that general role of committing murder of deceased Muskan alias Mandam is assigned to all the accused persons; however, co-accused Ali Sher, Abdul Haque, Muhammad Ali and Nek Muhammad, having similar role, were granted pre-arrest bail by the trial Court on 11.2.2022 and the prosecution has not assailed said order. He further submits that prior to this, son and husband of complainant Mst. Sahiba, namely, Jumo and Jousif @ Yousif were tried and subsequently convicted for offence under Sections 302, 148, 149, PPC under Crime No.710/2015 of PS Khanpur, in which uncle of present applicant was complainant and they were sentenced to life by the same trial Court; however, they have filed Cr. Jail Appeal No.S-56 of 2020, which is still pending adjudication before this Court. In support of his contentions, he placed copies of order dated 11.2.2022 as well as judgment dated 04.12.2020 under the cover of his statement of today’s date, which are taken on record; hence submits that case of applicant is at par with above-named co-accused, who have been extended extraordinary relief.

5.         Learned Addl. P.G. submits that since co-accused have been extended extraordinary relief and rule of consistency is attracted to the case of applicant; hence, he has no objection for grant of bail to the applicant.

6.         Learned Counsel for the complainant opposes the bail application and submits that present applicant had not only committed murder of his wife (deceased Muskan alias Mandam) but also caused disappearance of her dead body, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. He; however, could not controvert the fact that co-accused having been assigned same role have been bailed out, whereas their bail has not been assailed by the complainant.

7.         From perusal of the FIR, the alleged incident appears to be unseen and unwitnessed.  In the FIR, complainant alleges that she was not in contact with her daughter Muskan @ Mandam since long, but during intervening period she did not report the matter to police.  Inordinate and scandalous delay of 4 to 5 years in lodgment of FIR  without  any  plausible explanation casts serious doubt upon the veracity of version put forwarded in the FIR. Co-accused Ali Sher, Abdul Haque, Muhammad Ali and Nek Muhammad, whose case, with similar role, is on same footing to that of present applicant, have already been extended extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail and so far present applicant is concerned, no concrete material has been placed on record to form a different view, therefore, this is a fit case for grant of bail on the principle of consistency and equal treatment.  It is settled law that if even slightest doubt arises in the prosecution case even at bail stage, it’s benefit must be extended to the accused. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case of Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State and another (PLD 1996 Supreme Court 241).

8.         Consequently, instant bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- (Rupees three hundred thousand only) and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

9.         The above observations are based on tentative assessment of the material available on record, which shall not influence the trial Court, in any manner, during trial and at the time of final decision of the case.

JUDGE 

Qazi Tahir/*