YASIR AHMED Versus State

ORDER

OMAR SIAL, J. ---Yasir Ahmed, the applicant has sought post arrest bail in crime number 289/2020 registered under sections 302 and 34, P.P.C. at the NKIA Police Station. Earlier, his application seeking bail was dismissed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge Karachi Central on 20-08-2020.

2. The background to the case is that Muhammad Faisal lodged the aforementioned FIR on 01-07-2020 reporting an incident that had occurred on 30-06-2020. He recorded that his brother, Muhammad Shakir, had come to Karachi to find work. And that on 01-07-2020 he (Muhammad Faisal) was informed by police that his brother Shakir had been murdered by unknown people and that his body was laying at the Abbasi Shaheed Hospital. The FIR was registered against unknown persons.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned DPG. The learned DPG was assisted by the investigating officer of this case. My observations are as follows.

4. It appears after hearing the investigating officer of case that he came to the conclusion that it was the applicant who murdered Muhammad Shakir as his investigation had revealed that Shakir had illicit relationship with Hasan's (co-accused in the case) sister. Therefore, Shakir was lured by Hasan and Yasir to their factory workshop where they killed Shakir. Upon further enquiries as to how he reached the conclusion as to Hasan and Yasir were behind the murder, he responded there was a worker in an adjacent workshop in the same building, called Teerath, who had seen Yasir leaving the building from the workshop where allegedly the murder had been committed. Yasir, accordingly to teereth worked in the adjacent workshop. Based on this evidence the investigating officer had arrested and incarcerated the applicant as being the murderer. Teerath's section 161, Cr.P.C.. statement is sketchy and vague with many unanswered questions. According to Teerath, he only saw Yasir leave the workshop where he worked and although, Teerath heard noise/commotion from that workshop he had not seen the murder.

5. How Teerath recognized Yasir and knew his name is unconvincing and vague at the moment as is Teerath's explanation as to why he, Teerath, disappeared to eat lunch immediately after hearing the noise. According to Teerath, he did not inform anybody except the owner of his workshop about the noise that he heard. And even to his owner he had not stated that he had seen Yasir leave the building or that Yasir was the murderer. It is also strange that nobody else from an ostensibly crowded adjacent workshops was examined as a witness in this case. The photographs of the scene of the event prima facie, do not support the prosecution case. After Yasir had been arrested, no identification parade was held for Teerath to determine whether the person arrested was the person he saw leave the building. As admittedly Yasir worked in the same building, his leaving the workplace, would not prima facie be an odd occurrence. The prosecution has cited two more witnesses namely, Inzamam and Rauf. Rauf has categorically stated that he has arrived well after the incident. Whereas, Inzemam's section 161, Cr.P.C. itself is sketchy and vague.

6. During the hearing of this bail application the investigating officer was at a complete loss to explain as to what were the reasonable grounds of suspicion made him accuse the applicant. He did admit that he had collected no evidence to date that would establish the motive he himself has assigned to the murder i.e. the illicit relationship between Shakir and Hasan's sister. The nexus between Hasan and Yasir is also not established. No forensics have been carried out by the investigating officer that would prima facie show the applicant's involvement in the matter. Teerath is admittedly a resident of Sanghar. His ostensible presence on the fateful day also requires further inquiry. The investigating officer's verbal explanation upon a tentative assessment also does not reconcile with the supposed map of the place of incident which he has made.

7. Another startling thing is that two different sets of section 161, Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses are on the police file. Both with content that appears to be not similar.

8. All the above factors create doubt and make this a case of further inquiry. Accordingly, the applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000 and a P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

SA/Y-1/Sindh Bail granted.