AMIR HAMZA Versus STATE

ORDER

The petitioner Amir Hamza alongwith three others namely, Ahmad, Abdul Rahman and Amir Ali is accused in a case under section 302/34, P.P. C. for having caused the murder of Baboo alias Babui son of Sabzal at about 2‑00 a.m. on 16th February, 1987, i.e. the night between 5th and 6th February, 1987. The facts briefly stated are that on 16th February, 1987 on receipt of a telephonic message from one Haji Qasim that a dead body of one person was lying opposite Dilbahar Hotel in Baghdadi area, Karachi, Sub‑Inspector of Police Lai Hussain Shah rushed to the spot where he found Lal Bux, brother of the deceased, at whose instance he recorded F.I.R. of the crime. According to the version given by the first‑informant he had also reached the spot on hearing about the incident and was informed by Ibrahim and Yaqoob that at about 2 a.m. they were sitting at Agra Hotel, Massan Road when Salim alongwith three other persons came there in a white car and started beating Baboo. The two witnesses namely Ibrahim and Yaqoob, intervened and the assailants then left the scene, but returned after about 10 minutes and one of them came down from the car and called Baboo and when Baboo reached near the car he was asked why he had entered the house of Salim. He was thereafter shot at by the persons sitting in the car.

2. During the investigation of the case however, it appears from the police papers that the first informant as well as some other persons who claim to be the eye‑witnesses did not implicate Salim and replaced his name by the name of petitioner Amir Hamza. From the police papers which have been produced before me by the learned Additional Advocate‑General it is not clear as to how this substitution of the originally named accused namely Salim by the petitioner Amir Hamza was explained or took place. In fact two other persons whose names do not appear in the F.I.R. are said to have implicated the petitioner Amir Hamza. There is a letter written by Station House Officer Baghdadi Police Station under No.1798, dated 14th April, 1987 addressed to the Sub‑Divisional Police Officer, Baghdadi which also seems to support the case of the petitioner that he has been involved at a later stage as a culprit of the crime.

3. These are however tentative observations as are bound to be at this preliminary stage in this Misc. petition, but I find that a prima facie good case for grant of pre‑arrest bail has been made out till the main petition is decided.

4. Petitioner is, therefore, granted interim pre‑arrest bail, till the main petition is decided, on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and on executing personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Sessions Court (South) Karachi.

5. Petitioner is directed to associate with the police investigation as and when called upon to do so, and any failure on his part in this regard shall entitle the prosecution to apply to the trial Court for cancellation of the bail.

M.I./A‑180/S Interim pre‑arrest bail granted.