THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
1st Criminal Bail No.S-303 of 2022
Applicant: Saeedullah alias Saeed Ahmed Pathan through Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate.
Complainant: Muhammad Idrees Junejo, through Mr. Athar Abbas Solangi, Advocate.
Respondent: The State
Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.
Criminal Misc. Application No.S-228 of 2022
Applicant: Muhammad Idrees Junejo, through Mr. Athar Abbas Solangi, Advocate.
Respondent: Nasrullah Pathan through Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate.
The State
Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.
Date of hearing: 21.11.2022
Date of Order: 21.11.2022
O R D E R
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through this common order, I intend to dispose of instant Criminal Bail Application filed by applicant Saeedullah alias Saeed Ahmed Pathan, seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 62/2022, offence under Sections 302 & 34 P.P.C of the Police Station Darri, Larkana. Prior to this, he filed such application, but the same was turned down by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I (MCTC), Larkana vide order dated 13.06.2022; hence he filed instant Criminal Bail Application; and, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed by the complainant for cancellation of bail of the applicant/accused.
2. The details and particulars of the F.I.R. are already available in the bail application and F.I.R., same could not gathered from the copy of F.I.R. attached with such application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.
3. Per learned counsel, the applicant/accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; that the F.I.R. is delayed about eight days without any plausible explanation by the complainant and false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out. He further submits if any evidence is available against the applicant/accused Saedullah alias Saeed Pathan it is that he was last seen with deceased Tufail Ahmed, otherwise no evidence has been brought on the record; that as per medical certificate the injured was died due to strangulation, but the Investigating Officer present in Court states that due to the electric current he had lost his life; that the applicant/accused is no more required for further investigation. The Investigating Officer is present in the Court and confirmed that except the medical evidence there is no evidence against the present applicant/accused also respondent No.1 to connect with them with the commission of the offence. He lastly prayed for confirmation of bail to the applicant accused.
4. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that infact the deceased Tufail Ahmed was died due to strangulation and strong evidence is available on the record to connect the applicant/accused with the commission of offence. As per the complainant’s version the deceased was lastly accompanied with the accused person and further at the mid night the complainant saw the deceased in the vehicle of the applicant/accused. He has also relied upon Article 59 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 that whether the opinion of the Investigating Officer is binding in the case when the expert’s opinion/medical evidence is there that he was murdered due to strangulation. He lastly prayed for dismissal of bail to the applicant/accused and for allowing the Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed for cancellation of bail.
5. Heard and perused. Admittedly name of the applicant/accused is appearing in the F.I.R., but the only evidence available on the record against the applicant is that he was lastly seen with the deceased. Further F.I.R. is delayed about eight days and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that infact the incident has been taken place within the jurisdiction of Darri Police Station, but postmortem was conducted at the Police Station Airport, which is far away from Police Station Darri and the complainant malafidely with ulterior motives approached to the Doctors and obtained the medical certificate on his choice. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant that in view of Article 59 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 expert’s opinion prevails on the opinion of the Investigating Officer. At bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made and during the course of investigation, the Investigating officer has collected /secured drill machine, electric board, Tikum and USB of recording the whole process as they were digging the earth in search of gold. The case has been challaned and the applicant /accused is attending the Court and there is no complaint of misuse of the concession of bail. The applicant is no more required for further investigation. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused pleaded malafide on the part of the complainant for implicating the applicant/accused. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made out case for grant of bail under sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed interim pre-arrest granted to the applicant/accused vide order dated 17.06.2022 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and condition. However, in case of any misuse of the bail, the Trial Court is at liberty to take action against the applicant/accused in accordance with law. Resultantly, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Application seeking cancellation of bail is dismissed.
6. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of either party at trial.
J U D G E
Manzoor