MEERA KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD ISLAM

ORDER

ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J. ---Having remained unsuccessful in obtaining his release on bail from trial Court in Crime No.185/2017 registered under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Suhrab Goth, Karachi. Now the Applicant/accused Meera Khan is seeking his release on bail through instant bail application.

2. Precise facts leading to the background of this bail application are that a case under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. was registered against Applicant/accused and others at Police Station Sohrab Goth, on the complaint of the Complainant Islam son of Ali Dad Khan. It was reported that on 10.09.2017 in between 8 to 9 p.m. Applicant/accused Meera Khan called him through phone at the Sardar Hotel, Al-Asif Square then he went there along with his brother-in-law namely Zainuddin where accused Jawed was already available and accused Jawed as well as applicant/ accused Meera Khan had started fighting over the matrimonial dispute whereby caused Churi blows injuries to complainant and quarrel to his brother-in-law Zainuddin with saying to remain back because they will kill to him, meanwhile on the shouting younger brother Shah Muhammad of complainant was coming to him and reached inside of the G-Block then he was caught hold by the accused Shah Meer and applicant/accused Meer Khan then accused Jawed attempted knife blow on the left side of the neck of deceased while he was taken up in Rickshaw for going to Hospital but he succumbed the injury and died in the way. The death of deceased was confirmed by the doctor after arrival at Mamji Hospital Ancholi whereby complainant party reached with the dead body in ambulance at Abbasi Shaheed Hospital for post mortem. After conducting legal proceedings, he lodged the FIR on 13.09.2017 at 2350 hours at Police Station Sohrab Goth after consultation and burial of dead body of his deceased brother."

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the Applicant/accused that the case against Applicant/accused is false and has been registered due to admitted enmity in between the parties over matrimonial dispute; that the alleged incident took place on 10.09.2017, whereas the FIR of the incident was lodged on 13.09.2017 by Complainant Islam after the delay of three (03) days for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished, as such according to him on this ground alone false implication of the Applicant/accused in this case with due deliberation and consultation could not be ruled out; that during investigation a Joint Investigation Team was constituted to ascertain the truth and falsehood of the incident and during the sessions of Joint Investigation Team it was concluded only mere presence of the Applicant/accused in the case; that co-accused Shah Meer son of Najmuddin has already been granted bail by the trial Court vide order dated 18.10.2017, almost on same allegation and the case of the Applicant/accused is same as that of co-accused Shah Meer, therefore, according to him following the rule of consistency this Applicant/accused is also entitled for same relief; that the allegations against the Applicant/accused is that he called the Complainant and on his arrival caused him Churi blow which hit him on his left wrist and his waist and the MLO has declared these injuries as minor in nature and the punishment of the injuries attributed to the Applicant/accused which also does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, grant of bail on this score is a rule and refusal an exception, no exceptional circumstances appears in this case to withhold bail of the Applicant/accused; that present Applicant/accused has not caused any injury to deceased. It was co-accused namely Jawed who caused Churi blow to the deceased Shah Muhammad. That the learned trial Court while dismissing the bail plea of the Applicant/accused has failed to appreciate the fact that the case of prosecution is of two versions i.e. the one version is in FIR and the other is in shape of CCTV footages and also highlighted in the JIT report dated 07.02.2018 and admittedly both the versions are contradicting to each other and on this ground also the case of the Applicant/accused required further inquiry, as such according to him in view of the above the Applicant/accused is entitled for grant of bail.

4. Learned APG assisted by learned counsel for Complainant has opposed this bail application on the ground that Applicant/accused is nominated in FIR and accusation against him is well founded. He further contended that the PWs have supported the version of complainant. He further contended that the medical evidence is also supported to the Complaint of the Complainant. He added that present the Applicant/ accused called the Complainant at the place of incident where he intentionally caused Churi blow to the complainant which hit him on his left wrist as well as back of the Complainant and also facilitated to main accused "Jawed" who committed murder of Shah Muhammad.

5. I have given my anxious thought to the contentions raised at the Bar and have gone through the case papers so made available before me.

6. It appears from the police papers that the alleged incident was taken place on 10.09.2017 in between 8 to 9 pm, whereas the FIR was lodged on 13.09.2017 at 2350 hours with delay of three (03) days and complainant himself admitted in his FIR that the said FIR was lodged after consultation and funeral ceremony of deceased (Shah Muhammad). The allegation against Applicant/accused is that he called the complainant where main accused Jawed was also available and this applicant/accused along with co-accused Shah Meer caught hold the deceased, whereupon Jawed caused fatal churi blow to deceased. Nothing on record that Applicant/accused has caused any injury to deceased. On the basis of same allegation co-accused Shah Meer has already been granted bail by the trial Court vide order dated 18.10.2017 and the case of the Applicant/accused is same as that of co-accused Shah Meer, therefore, following the rule of consistency this Applicant/accused is also entitled for same relief. So far as the injury to Complainant is concerned the same is on non-vital part of his body and as per MLO report these injuries are minor in nature and their punishment also do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to mention here that in this matter a Joint Investigation Team was also constituted to ascertain the truth and falsehood of the allegation of the incident. It is argued by the learned counsel for the Applicant/accused that the case of prosecution is of two versions i.e. the one version is in FIR and other is in shape of CCTV footages and admittedly both the versions are contradicting to each other and this aspect of the case also requires further probe into the guilt of present Applicant/accused. When this aspect of the case was confronted to learned APG, he has not replied satisfactory. Since the contents of FIR as well as report of JIT dated 07.02.2018 and in view of Challan sheet submitted by the I.O. with regard to some material contradictions in between them, on material particulars of the case. I have gone through the case law reported in 2011 SCMR 161, wherein it has been held that at bail stage deeper appreciation of evidence cannot gone into but a bird eye view is to be taken to available record before the Court to satisfy prima facie, whether accused are connected with commission of offence or not. Even otherwise benefit of doubt will go to the accused even at Bail stage. Here in this case some contradiction on material particulars of the case appears in between FIR, Challan Sheet as well as in JIT report with regard to role of the Applicant/accused in this case which required further probe during trial.

7. For what has been observed above, I am satisfied that the case of the Applicant/accused is required further inquiry, attracting the provision of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and therefore the bail application is accepted and the Applicant/accused is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and PR Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Needless to mention here that any observation if any in this order is tentative in nature and shall not affect the merits of the case. Before parting with the order it is made clear that it is a murder case, therefore, the trial Court is directed to proceed the case expeditiously and decide the same as per law within the period of six (06) months after receipt of this order. No unnecessary adjournments shall be granted to either side. It is also made clear that in case during proceeding if Applicant/accused misuses the bail, then trial Court would be competent to cancel the bail of the Applicant/accused after due notice to him.

MQ/M29/Sindh Bail allowed.