Sayed KARIM SHAH Versus State
ORDER
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.--- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case under section 302, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Gupis vide FIR No. 13/2019 dated 26.3.2019.
2. the post-arrest bail of the petitioner was refused by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit vide order dated 8/8/2019 and being aggrieved from the said judgment/order the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant bail petition.
3. The brief facts of the case have been highlighted in para 2 of the impugned judgment which are reproduced as under:-
2. "The facts leading to the instant petition as disclosed in the said FIR are that on 29.8.2017 the wife of the petitioner had died in result of a gunshot injury. The petitioner convinced the police to label the death of his wife as a result of suicide committed by her by opening fire at herself through the pistol of the petitioner which was lying at the house. He further convinced the police that the deceased was suffering from some mental disease; she has committed suicide due to such illness. The police submitted the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. exonerating the petitioner from any offence. But learned Judicial Magistrate Gupis/Yasin did not agree with the report of the police and ordered further investigation. Meanwhile the petitioner obtained his bail before arrest. On 30.04.2019 his petition for confirmation of bail before arrest was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner was arrested and interrogated by the police. During the investigation it came to the light that the petitioner has committed murder of his wife by shooting her by a pistol. His confessional statement has been recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate Gupis/Yasin. In the said statement the petitioner has admitted that he had illicit relations with Mst. Bibi Hamidah the wife of brother of his wife namely Shah Mohiuddin. On the day of occurrence the deceased wife of the petitioner had seen the petitioner and said Bibi Hamidah in objectionable liaison. Thereafter she had threatened the petitioner that she would inform her brother about such immoral activity of the petitioner. The petitioner first attempted to deter her from informing his brother about such scandalous activity by appeasing her and requesting her not to do so. On her refusal and adamancy, he got infuriated and shot her at her chest. She got injured critically and soon died at civil hospital Gupis succumbing to said gun-shot injury."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is false and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case, with the active connivance of complainant party and local police. The learned counsel submitted that there is no worth reliance evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. A false and fabricated story has been tailored by the prosecution. The lady committed suicide and case was handled by the local police after thorough investigation, but the cancelled Judicial Magistrate did not agree with the local police and ordered re-investigation of the case. Per learned counsel during re-investigation the confessional statement of the petitioner under section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded, which is devoid of any legal force as the same was recorded with a considerable delay. The learned counsel relied on PLD 1978 SC 21, 1999 PCr.LJ 379, 2001 PCr.LJ 1907, 2003 PCr.LJ 142, 2008 PCr.LJ 87, 2009 MLD 154, 2009 PCr.LJ 1085, 2010 YLR 2827 and 2012 PCr.LJ 1293.
5. On the other hand the learned Dy. A.G. submitted that the petitioner/accused is responsible for committing murder of his own wife, because she spotted him in an objectionable position with the wife of her real brother. Per Dy. A.G. the petitioner/accused tried to console the lady but when she remained consistent that she will disclose the extra marital relations to the members of her family, the petitioner decided to do away with her to close the chapter of disclosure forever. Per learned Dy. A.G. the confessional statement of the petitioner/accused was recorded after observing the codal formalities and the statement so recorded shows the happening of the events in a natural way. The crime weapon has been recovered from the petitioner. There is a prima facie case against the petitioner and he is not entitled for concession of bail.
6. Case of the prosecution and the material collected during investigation of the case examined and the arguments of both the learned counsel of the parties heard at a considerable length.
7. The petitioner committed the murder of his own wife in a deceitful manner and tried to screen of the offence by terming the same as suicide. The petitioner obtained bail before arrest and after cancellation of the same, he was arrested. During investigation of the case the petitioner not only confessed his guilt before police but also got recorded his confessional statement before learned Judicial Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C., which is inculpatory in nature. Statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. is a substantive piece of evidence, till the same is proved otherwise, during trial. There is abundant evidence available against the petitioner and he is not entitled for concession of bail.
8. As a result of above discussion the bail petition is declined accordingly.
SA/131/GB Petition dismissed.