DHANI BUX and 2 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal case where the applicants sought post-arrest bail in connection with an FIR registered for the alleged murder of the complainant's brother by drowning him in a canal. The core legal questions involve whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, subsequent improvements in the complainant's statements during investigation, and unnatural conduct of purported eye-witnesses constitute grounds for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence. The Sindh High Court held that the unexplained delay, the improvements made in the case, the presence of previous enmity, and the passive conduct of alleged eye-witnesses who watched the incident without intervening all point towards circumstances requiring further inquiry. Consequently, the court admitted all three applicants to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing requisite sureties. The key principle laid down is that material improvements, unexplained delays in FIR registration, and dubious conduct of witnesses leading to reasonable doubt justify granting further inquiry bail.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR warrant further inquiry for the grant of bail?
- Whether subsequent improvements in the complainant's statement during investigation justify granting post-arrest bail?
- Is the unnatural conduct of an eye-witness standing by as a spectator a ground for further inquiry under criminal law?
ORDER
1. ' MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.--- Facts of the case are that on 28-6-2006 F.I.R. Was lodged by complainant Shafi Muhammad that there was a dispute between him and Dhani Bux and Rafique over water. On 25-8-2006 in morning complainant's brother deceased Abdul Sattar had taken away cattle for grazing. At about 1430 hours Muhammad Waris and Balach Khan had informed complainant at his house that they had heard cries of deceased and found accused Dhani Bux and Rafique drowned Abdul Sattar in Nara Canal. Dost Muhammad was also standing on the bank of canal in company of both the accused persons. On the basis of this information, F.I.R. Was lodged and applicants were taken into custody.
2. ' It is stated by learned counser for the applicant that they have been falsely implicated in the matter which is apparent from the zimni report lodged by Muhammad Waris son of Abdul Khan Chandio on 25-6-2007 which speaks only to the extent of making information of death of deceased Abdul Sattar. Neither the name of applicant has been mentioned therein as culprit nor their role has been assigned. However, in another report lodged on 28-6-2006 a new version has been taken by the complainant implicating the applicants as culprits. This subsequent improvement on the face of it, appears to be a mala fide act on the part of the complainant with consultation of his family members due to previous enmity between applicants and the complainant. It is further pointed out that though the incident came in the knowledge of the complainant on the very day i.e. 25-6-2006 as appears from the zimni report lodged by Muhammad Waris but no explanation for the delay in lodging F.I.R. On 28-6-2006 has been made.
3. Learned State counsel has conceded that it is a case of . Improvement in the statement of complainant during investigation. Delay in lodging F.I.R., proves enmity in between parties and improvement in the statement of complainant one of the factors which needs proper investigation and examination and require sufficient evidence.
4. ' It is also astonishing that uncles of deceased, who claims to be eye-witnesses of incident with so near relation had played no role to save the deceased when in his presence he was said to be drowned by applicant and he stands there just an spectator. All these aspects require further inquiry.
5. ' In view of foregoing reasons all the three applicants are admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- YASIR MAHMOOD & others vs STATE & others 2009 PLJ Sh.C. (AJ&K) 70