FARASAT ALI Versus STATE
ORDER
1. Applicant Syed Farasat Ali son of Syed Amjad Ali is detained in F.I.R. No.625/90 registered at Police Station Joharabad, Karachi for offences under section 302/202/201/34, P.P.C. The applicant had applied for bail before the trial Court but the same was rejected, as such he has preferred the present bail application.
2. The case of the prosecution is that S.I.P. Ali Asghar lodged F.I.R. on behalf of the State in which he stated that he had received a telephonic message on 19-12-1990 from Dr. Zubair Ahmed, M.L.O. Abbasi Shaheed Hospital to the effect that a dead body of unknown girl has been brought in the hospital. A report was registered, in consequence of which the Police Officer visited the hospital and inspected the dead body after post-mortem examination. Investigation was conducted, in the course of which statements of the witnesses were recorded. It transpired that the dead girl was Mst. Koopia and it was disclosed by the witnesses, namely, Shahnaz, Mst. Sofia and Muhammad Razaq that the incident took place between the night of 18th and 19th December, 1990 when they were all watching film on T.V. in the house of the applicant. It is stated that the applicant at that time expressed his wish to marry with Mst. Koopia, but she declined and thereafter when the applicant was cutting jokes, he suddenly took out a pistol and shot Mst. Koopia, who received fire-arm and became unconscious. She was removed to the hospital, but by that time she had expired.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and so also the learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the previous bail application was rejected by late Mr. Justice Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi in Criminal Bail No. 10 of 1993 vide order, dated 14-1-1993. In the said order it was observed that the two material witnesses namely; Soofia and Shahnaz be examined within three months and thereafter the applicant could repeat his bail application. Subsequently on 19-8-1993 Mst. Soofia was examined while Mst. Shahnaz was examined on 7-11-1993. Thereafter a bail application was repeated before the trial Court, but the same was rejected. Learned counsel further submits that the incident took place on 19-12-1990 and now after three years the two witnesses have been, examined. He has referred to the deposition of the said witnesses in order to show that they have made massive improvement on their previous statements. He has further submitted that Mst. Soofia is a call girl as per her own admission in previous statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. I may observe that the appreciation of evidence cannot be done at bail stage, but from the tentative point of view, the cross-examination of Mst. Soofia clearly indicates that she was informed by Razzaq that the accused had called the deceased and took her to his house. Her cross-examination further indicates that she was examined by the police three, days after the incident. It is also very clear that for the first time P.W. Mst. Soofia alongwith her mother went to see the dead body in the hospital. The other witness Mst. Shahnaz admits in cross-examination that she did not narrate about the incident to anyone. She even disowns her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. Without making any further comments, suffice to say that it view of the evidence of the said witnesses, a ground for bail is made out by the applicant.
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, bail is granted to the applicant on hi; furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. N.H.Q./F-225/K Bail allowed