ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. B.A. No. S- 420 of 2012.
For hearing.
Mr. Rana Hafiz Tanveer Ahmed Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Sardar Ali Shah, APG for the State.
Date of hearing: 07.08.2012.
*****
Naimatullah Phulpoto J., The applicant/accused Shuaib seeks bail in Crime No. 60 of 2012, lodged against accused at Police Station, Bhiria City on 20.4.2012, under sections 302, 364, 311, 120-B, 34 PPC.
Brief facts of the
prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR are that complainant had three
brothers. Qurban Ali aged about 22 years (now deceased) was his younger
brother. About five years back, complainant shifted from village Kharr Taluka
Daulatpur and settled in village Usman. Deceased Qurban Ali was Munshi with his
uncle Haji Aslam Bughio at Shahpur Jahania. About two months back, Qurban Ali
entered into love marriage with Mst. Samina d/o Ghulam Rasol resident of
Statements of PWs Miskeen and Mohammad Ramzan were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C on 25.4.2012 and present applicant was arrested on 26.4.2012. Abductee Mst. Samina was recovered on 26.4.2012. Her 161 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded on 27.4.2012. Statement of Mst. Samina was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 5.5.2012. Accused Mst. Rubina was let off by police during investigation. On the conclusion of investigation, challan was submitted against the present applicant and others under sections 302,364,343,120-B PPC.
Bail application was moved on behalf of the applicant before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Naushehro Feroze, which was rejected vide order dated 21.5.2012.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that name of the present applicant did not transpire in the FIR. The applicant has also not been implicated by the PWs in their 161 CrPC statements. Only allegation against the applicant is that he was taxi driver and he had facilitated co-accused in the abduction of Mst. Samina. Accused Rubina has been let off by police during investigation. It was further argued that prosecution case is highly doubtful and the applicant has no concern of whatsoever with the alleged offence. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the case law reported as Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 241) and Muhammad Shaheen alias Shan v. The State (2009 PCrLJ 21).
Learned APG for the State argued that the applicant was taxi driver and he had facilitated co-accused in the commission of offence. PW Mst. Samina has implicated the applicant in her abduction, as such he has opposed this bail application.
I have carefully heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Name of the applicant did not transpire in the FIR so
also in 161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs. P.W Mst. Samina in her statement under
section 164 Cr.P.C has stated that she along with her sister Mst. Rubina after
murder of Qurban Ali were taken forcibly by accused persons in a car to Punjab
and she has implicated accused Roshan, present applicant and Moazam. It is very
strange that Mst. Samina did not raise hue and cry on the way to the
“So whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth/probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, the accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail. In such a situation, it would be better to keep an accused person on bail then in the jail, during the trial. Freedom of an individual is a precious right. Personal liberty granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction should not be snatched away from accused unless it becomes necessary to deprive him of his liberty under the law. Where story of prosecution does not appear to be probable, bail may be granted so that further inquiry may be made into guilt of the accused”.
I, therefore, for the stated reasons hold that reasonable doubt arises with regard to participation of present applicant/accused in this case. Hence, case of the applicant prima facie calls for further inquiry in terms of subsection 2 of section 497 Cr.P.C. Consequently, bail application is allowed and bail is granted to the applicant Shuaib subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two lacs) with PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The observations made are tentative in nature and trial Court shall not be influenced by any such observation while deciding the case on merits.
Judge,