GHULAM NABI Versus GUL MUHAMMAD

ORDER

While granting bail to Gul Muhammad respondent within four months of his arrest, the learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to have been influenced by the fact that the two accused persons, namely, Gul Muhammad respondent, and his co-accused Mumtaz and the deceased had been drinking Alcohol on the night of occurrence and that Gul Muhammad respondent had himself remained unconscious for three/four days. The indication is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that all the three had been taking Alcohol together and it was on account of the Alcohol being spurious that the death of Mian Khan had got caused. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner, insecticide belonging to organo phosphorous group had been detected in the viscera taken from the body of Mian Khan deceased. This kind of poison could not have reached tire body of the deceased only on account of Alcohol going bad. This would have been possible only if this kind of a poison had been intentionally added to the liquid which had been drunk by Mian Khan deceased.

2. The fact that Gul Muhammad respondent had also remained unconscious for three to four days after allegedly drinking the Alcohol alongwith Mian Khan deceased, is a question which hardly has any support in record. He is stated to have full unconscious at the spot. For his having remained unconscious for three to four days, no evidence could be offered td 8 the Investigating Officer emanating from any doctor or hospital that the respondent was in fact fully unconscious and had been treated. This was not the kind of special feature which should have persuaded the learned Additional Sessions Judge to treat Gul Muhammad respondent differently from the co accused Mumtaz. The evidence of last seen is available with the prosecution and its value and worth would be determined only at the trial.

3. In the circumstances, I find that the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not a judicious exercise of power. Consequently, bail allowed to Gul Muhammad respondent through an order, dated 21-9-1993 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Depalpur, is recalled.

4. It is stated at the Bar that the trial has been fixed for recording of evidence. If this be so, then the learned trial Court shall take steps for expeditious disposal of the trial and before I part with the order I must also observe that nothing said or observed in this order should be taken as a final determination of any fact or issue and should not influence the learned trial Court while dealing with the trial in question.

5. This petition is allowed in the above terms.

N.H.Q./G-220/L Bail cancelled.